Welsh Water Habitats Regulations Assessment of Draft Water Resources Management Plan 2013

Draft Assessment of Preferred Options

AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited

March 2013

Third-Party Disclaimer Any disclosure of this report to a third party is subject to this disclaimer. The report was prepared by AMEC at the instruction of, and for use by, our client named on the front of the report. It does not in any way constitute advice to any third party who is able to access it by any means. AMEC excludes to the fullest extent lawfully permitted all liability whatsoever for any loss or damage howsoever arising from reliance on the contents of this report. We do not however exclude our liability (if any) for personal injury or death resulting from our negligence, for fraud or any other matter in relation to which we cannot legally exclude liability.

Document Revisions

No. Details Date

1 Draft for client review 22.02.13

2 Draft for client review 21.03.13

3 Consultation version 26.03.13

Contents

1. Introduction 1 1.1 Water resource planning 1 1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment 1 1.3 This Report 2

2. HRA of Water Resource Management Plans 3 2.1 Guidance 3 2.2 Overview 3 2.3 Key issues for HRA of the WRMP 4 2.3.1 Understanding the likely outcomes of the WRMP 4 2.3.2 Sustainability reductions and the Review of Consents 6 2.3.3 Uncertainty and determining significant or adverse effects 8 2.3.4 Mitigating uncertainty and ‘down the line’ assessment 10

3. Feasible Options Assessment 12 3.1 Overview 12 3.2 Data Collection 13 3.2.1 WRMP Options 13 3.2.2 European Sites 13 3.3 Approach to feasible options 13 3.3.1 ‘Screening’ of the unconstrained list 13 3.3.2 ‘Screening’ of feasible options 13 3.3.3 Key assumptions 16 3.3.4 Avoidance measures and incorporated mitigation 17

4. Summary of Feasible Options Assessment 18 4.1 Feasible demand-side and leakage reduction options 18 4.2 Feasible supply-side options 18

5. Preferred Options Assessment 29 5.1 Approach 29 5.1.1 Assessment 29 5.1.2 In-combination Effects 29

5.1.3 Key assumptions, avoidance measures and incorporated mitigation 31 5.2 Preferred options 31 5.3 North Eryri/ Ynys Môn 32 5.3.1 Overview 32 5.3.2 8001.23 – Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir 32 5.3.3 8001.3 – Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW 32 5.4 Tywyn Aberdyfi 38 5.4.1 Overview 38 5.4.2 8021.3 New abstraction from Afon Dysynni at Pont y Garth (to Pen y Bont WTW) 38 5.4.3 8021.6 Transfer from new Abergynolwyn WTW 42 5.5 Brecon Portis 45 5.5.1 Option 8108.4 - Additional Releases from Usk Reservoir 45 5.5.2 Option 8108.7 – Penycrug to Portis transfer main renewal 49 5.6 Pembrokeshire 50 5.6.1 Overview 50 5.6.2 Option 8206.11 – Transfer Water from Bolton Hill WTW to Preseli WTW 50 5.6.3 Option 8206.18 - Import from Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire 54 5.7 In-combination Effects 58 5.7.1 ‘In Combination’ Effects between Preferred Options 58 5.7.2 In-combination Effects - Other Plans 62 5.7.3 In-combination Effects – Other Projects 63 5.8 Summary of Assessment 64

6. Conclusions 68 6.1 ‘Strategic Water Availability’ - the WRMP and the Review of Consents 68 6.2 Assessment of Preferred Options 69 6.3 Conclusion 70

Table 2.1 Welsh Water abstraction licences identified for modification under the Review of Consents 8 Table 3.1 Summary of significance assessment criteria 15 Table 4.1 Feasible options 19 Table 4.1 (cont’d.) Feasible options 20 Table 4.2 Additional feasible options (post feasible options assessment, December 2012) 20 Table 4.3 Summary of feasible options assessment 21 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 22 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 23 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 24 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 25 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 26

vii

Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 27 Table 4.3 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment 28 Table 5.1 Preferred Options 31 Table 5.2 Screening summary for Option 8001.3 33 Table 5.3 Screening summary for Option 8021.3 39 Table 5.4 Screening summary for Option 8021.6 42 Table 5.5 Screening summary for Option 8108.04 46 Table 5.6 Screening summary for Option 8108.04 49 Table 5.7 Screening summary for Option 8206.11 51 Table 5.8 Screening summary for Option 8206.1 54 Table 5.9 Summary of Possible Inter-Option ‘In Combination’ Effects (NEYM = North Eryri / Ynys Môn; TA = Tywyn Aberdyfi; BP = Brecon Portis; Pembs. = Pembrokeshire) 59 Table 5.10 Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures 65 Table 5.10 (cont’d) Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures 66 Table 5.10 (cont’d) Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures 67

Appendix A Figures Appendix B European sites and associated protected areas Appendix C European sites and interest features Appendix D Interest feature abbreviations Appendix E Water resource dependent interest features Appendix F Condition assessments Appendix G Feasible options assessment summary Appendix H Plans and Strategies Considered for Possible ‘In Combination’ Effects Appendix I Summary of ‘in combination’ assessment with other strategic plans Appendix J Standard avoidance measures and best-practice

1. Introduction

1.1 Water resource planning

All water companies in England and Wales must set out their strategy for managing water resources across their supply area over the next 25 years. This statutory requirement is defined under the Water Act 2003, which also sets out how water companies should publish a Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) for consultation, setting out how they will balance supply and demand over the 25 year planning period. The WRMP is also linked to other water resource planning and policy documents, including the Drought Plan, Water Efficiency Strategy and Leakage Strategy.

The WRMP process identifies potential shortages in the future availability of water and sets out the possible solutions required to maintain the balance between water available and future demand for water. The process initially reviews as many potential solutions as possible (the ‘unconstrained list’ of options) to identify ‘feasible’ options for each Water Resource Zone (WRZ) where deficits are predicted. These ‘feasible’ options are reviewed according to an industry standard methodology to identify ‘preferred options’ to resolve any supply deficits in relation to financial, environmental and social costing. This preferred list is based on standard assessment methodologies set out in the WRMP, the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations Assessment. Options to resolve deficits or predicted deficits can be broadly categorised as follows:

• Production and Resource Management - options that vary yield (e.g. new abstractions) or which reduce/ modify usage from where it is abstracted to where it enters the network;

• Customer-side Management - options which reduce customers’ consumption;

• Distribution Management - options within or affecting the distribution network, such as, leakage reduction or new distribution pipelines.

1.2 Habitats Regulations Assessment

Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) (the ‘Habitats Regulations’) requires that competent authorities assess the potential impacts of plans and programmes on the Natura 2000 network of European protected sites1 to determine whether there will be any ‘likely significant effects’ (LSE) on any European site as a result of the Plan’s implementation (either on its own or ‘in combination’ with other plans or projects); and, if so, whether these effects will result in any adverse effects on the site’s integrity.

1 Strictly, a European Site is any classified Special Protection Area (SPA) or any Special Area of Conservation (SAC) from the point at which the European Commission and the UK Government agree the site as a ‘Site of Community Importance’ (SCI). However, the provisions of the Habitats Regulations and Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (the ‘new wild birds directive’) are also applied (respectively) to candidate SACs (cSACs) and potential SPAs (pSPAs); and as a matter of Government policy for possible SACs (pSACs) and listed Ramsar Sites for the purpose of considering development proposals affecting them (TAN 5 para. 5.1.3)). As such, pSPAs, pSACs and Ramsar Sites must also be considered by any HRA. Within this report “European site” is used as a generic term for all of the above designated sites. Additional information on European site designations is provided in Appendix A.

The process by which the impacts of a Plan or Programme are assessed against the conservation objectives of a European site is known as Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)2. WRMPs are not explicitly included within this legislation, although Natural England (NE) and the Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) have previously stated that this requirement should extend to plans such as the WRMP. The Habitats Regulations require every Competent Authority, in the exercise of any of its functions, to have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive. Water Companies have a statutory duty to prepare WRMPs and are therefore the Competent Authority for a HRA.

1.3 This Report

Regulation 61 essentially provides a test that the final WRMP must pass; there is no requirement for HRA to be undertaken on draft plans or similar developmental stages. However, as with SEA or Sustainability Appraisal (SA) it is accepted best-practice for HRA of strategic planning documents to be run as an iterative process alongside the plan development, with the emerging proposals or options continually assessed for their possible effects on European sites and modified or abandoned (as necessary) to ensure that the subsequently adopted plan is not likely to result in significant or adverse effects on any European sites, either alone or in combination with other plans. This is undertaken in consultation with NE, CCW, and other appropriate consultees. It is therefore important to recognise that the strategic HRA is as much about guiding the development of the plan (and demonstrating that this has been done) as it is about (ultimately) assessing its effects.

AMEC has been commissioned by Welsh Water to undertake the data collection and interpretation required to support an HRA of the WRMP, and to determine whether any aspects of the WRMP (alone or in-combination) could have significant or adverse effects on the integrity of any European sites.

This report summarises AMEC’s assessment of Welsh Water’s ‘preferred options’ against the conservation objectives of any European sites that may be affected, and forms the second phase of the iterative HRA process that will support the WRMP.

For clarity and completeness, the report includes much of the data and text from the ‘feasible options’ assessment report, completed in December 2012.

2 ‘Appropriate Assessment’ has been historically used as an umbrella term to describe the process of assessment as a whole. The whole process is now more usually termed ‘Habitats Regulations Assessment’ (HRA), and ‘Appropriate Assessment’ is used to indicate a specific stage within the HRA.

2. HRA of Water Resource Management Plans

2.1 Guidance

Water Resource Management Plans are not explicitly included within the legislation underpinning HRA, and therefore HRA of strategic documents such as the WRMP (as opposed to land-use plans) is very much an emerging field; indeed, the WRMP has many characteristics that make it less amenable to a standard ‘land-use plans’ approach. The following guidance will be used in the preparation of the assessment.

• UK Water Industry Research Ltd (2012) Strategic Environmental Assessment and Habitats Regulations Assessment - Guidance for Water Resources Management Plans and Drought Plans. UKWIR, Queen Anne’s Gate, London;

• Tyldesley D (2012). Draft Guidance for Plan Making Authorities in Wales: The Appraisal of Plans Under the Habitats Directive. David Tyldesley and Associates, for the Countryside Council for Wales;

• WAG (2009). Technical Advice Note 5 (Annexe VI). Welsh Assembly Government, Cardiff;

• DCLG (2006). Planning for the Protection of European Sites: Appropriate Assessment. Guidance for Regional Spatial Strategies and Local Development Documents. Department for Communities and Local Government, HMSO, London;

• English Nature (1997-2001). Habitats Regulations Guidance Notes 1-9, Natural England, Peterborough;

• European Commission (2002). Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. European Commission, Brussels;

• European Commission (2001). Assessment of plans and projects significantly affecting Natura 2000 sites. European Commission, Brussels;

• European Communities (2007). Managing Natura 2000 sites: The provisions of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive 92/433/EEC. European Commission, Brussels.

2.2 Overview

An HRA determines whether there will be any ‘likely significant effects’ (LSE) on any European site as a result of a Plan’s implementation (either on its own or ‘in combination’ with other plans or projects) and, if so, whether these effects will result in any adverse effects on the site’s integrity. The current European Commission guidance3 suggests a four-stage process for HRA, although not all stages will be necessarily required:

3 Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (EC 2002).

Box 1 Stages of Habitats Regulations Assessment

Stage 1 – Screening: This stage identifies the likely impacts upon a European Site of a project or Plan, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, and considers whether these impacts are likely to be significant.

Stage 2 – Appropriate Assessment: Where there are likely significant impacts, this stage considers the impacts of the Plan or project on the integrity of the relevant European Sites, either alone or in combination with other projects or plans, with respect to the sites’ structure and function and their conservation objectives. Where there are adverse impacts, it also HABITATS includes an assessment of the potential mitigation for those impacts. REGULATIONS ASSESSMENT Stage 3 – Assessment of alternative solutions: (HRA) Where adverse impacts are predicted, this stage examines alternative ways of achieving the objectives of the project or Plan that avoid adverse impacts on the integrity of European Sites.

Stage 4 – Assessment where no alternative solutions exist and where adverse impacts remain: This stage assesses compensatory measures where it is deemed that the project or Plan should proceed for imperative reasons of overriding public interest (IROPI). The guidance does not deal with the assessment of IROPI.

The standard stepwise approach summarised in Box 1 works well at the project-level where the scheme design is established and possible effects on European sites can be quantitatively assessed with the benefit of detailed survey data. In contrast, the fundamental nature of the WRMP presents a number of distinct challenges for a ‘strategic’ HRA and it is therefore important to understand how the WRMP is developed, how it would operate in practice, and hence how it might consequently affect European sites. In particular, there is a potential conflict between the specific nature of the options; the requirement that the options (and hence the plan) have ‘no LSE’ or ‘no adverse effects’; the level of certainty that can be established at the strategic level; and the desirability of not excluding every potential solution which cannot be conclusively investigated within the WRMP development timescales.

It should also be recognised that the rigid ‘staged’ approach to assessment suggested by Box 1 can be difficult to apply to evolving plans that are being assessed iteratively. The HRA is ultimately a test that the final document must pass, and there is no statutory requirement for the developmental phases of the WRMP (e.g. ‘feasible options’ or the subsequent ‘preferred options’) to undergo HRA themselves. Therefore, it is important to recognise that the strategic HRA is as much about guiding the development of the plan (and demonstrating that this has been done) as it is about (ultimately) assessing its effects.

2.3 Key issues for HRA of the WRMP

2.3.1 Understanding the likely outcomes of the WRMP

The WRMP process establishes supply and demand balances for the Welsh Water supply area and identifies potential supply deficits. Options are then proposed to resolve these deficits. In determining the deficits the WRMP calculates deployable output, which is based on the existing permitted abstraction consents, the Review of Consents Sustainability Reductions, the likely effects of climate change on supply, and the predicted future demand.

Demand forecasts are completed in accordance with the Water Resources Planning Guideline (published by the Environment Agency in June 2012) and take into account (inter alia):

• economic factors (economic growth, metering, pricing);

• behavioural factors (patterns of water use);

• demographic factors (population growth, inward and outward migration, changes in occupancy rate);

• planning policy (LPA land use plans);

• company policies (e.g. on leakage control and water efficiency measures); and

• environmental factors, including climate change.

The WRMP therefore accounts for these demand forecasts based on historical trends, an established growth forecast model, and through review of local and regional planning documents.

The WRMP process initially sets out an ‘unconstrained list’ of possible solutions regardless of cost or technical merit. This is then refined to identify ‘feasible options’ and subsequently the ‘preferred options’. This filtering process is based on a range of assessments including SEA and the principles of Habitats Regulations Assessment and produces a short list of feasible options for financial, environmental and social costing. Options to resolve deficits or predicted deficits can be broadly categorised as follows:

• Demand-side measures (options which reduce customers’ consumption, such as metering);

• Supply-side measures, either:

- Production and Resource Management - options that vary yield (e.g. new abstractions) or which reduce/ modify usage from where it is abstracted to where it enters the network;

- Distribution Management - options within or affecting the distribution network, such as leakage reduction or new distribution pipelines.

The HRA focuses on the supply-side options4 and their potential effects. The options will generally require one or more of the following:

• development of new surface or groundwater sources, or desalination of sea water (‘new water’);

• modification of an existing licence to alter the operational and network regime (e.g. additional abstraction);

• use of ‘spare water’ from existing licensed sources through operational adjustments or capital works (e.g. new treatment facilities);

4 ‘Demand-side’ options (i.e. options designed to reduce water use such as metering or provision of water butts) are considered unlikely to have any significant or adverse effects on any European sites (see Section 4.1).

• re-instatement of existing, mothballed sources (with or without current licences);

• capital works to the distribution network; or

• transferring water from adjacent water companies with a supply demand surplus.

The various Options could affect European sites through their implementation (for example, construction of new pipelines) or operation (e.g. new abstractions), and these effects can broadly be categorised as:

• direct (activities that affect a European site directly; for example, construction of a new intake within an SPA reservoir; discharges to an SAC from a desalination plant; new or increased abstractions from an SAC river);

• indirect (activities that affect a European site indirectly through a impact pathway; for example, construction affecting a downstream SAC through sediment release; new abstractions entraining SAC fish species away from the SAC itself); or

• consequential (for example, adjusting or stopping a bulk transfer between water resource zones, or between water companies, may have indirect ‘consequential’ effects on distant European sites if this results in additional abstraction to make up a shortfall; this is more typically a type of ‘in combination’ effect).

The HRA identifies likely outcomes of each Option, its ‘zone of influence’, and the European sites that could potentially be affected by the Options. This information is then used to assesses, as far as possible, the likely effects of these Options, and to identify the most suitable (from an HRA perspective).

The HRA of the WRMP must consider any European sites that could be affected by the implementation of the Plan, whether they are within the geographical boundaries of the Welsh Water supply area or not. When determining this it is also necessary to consider potential ‘in combination’ effects; these are possible cumulative effects on European sites caused by the WRMP, together with the effects of any existing or proposed projects or plans5. However, it must be recognised that many of the possible ‘in combination’ effects (particularly with respect to water resources and land-use plans) are explicitly considered and accounted for as part of the WRMP development process (see Section 2.3.2).

2.3.2 Sustainability reductions and the Review of Consents

There are two broad components of the WRMP that arguably require consideration in the HRA:

• the specific options that are proposed through the WRMP (effects of these either during construction or operation, alone or in combination); and

• the assumptions (in terms of consented abstractions and effects on European sites) underpinning the supply/deficit calculations (i.e. are the currently permitted consents, on which the Plan is based, sustainable?).

5 Methodological guidance on the provisions of Article 6(3) and (4) of the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (EC 2002).

The second aspect requires precise quantification of the effects of abstraction and other consents (including non- Welsh Water consents) on European sites and is not within the remit of Welsh Water (or its WRMP) since it is not the consenting authority for these. This examination of existing individual consents can only be undertaken by the Environment Agency (EA) through its Review of Consents (RoC) process and the HRA of the WRMP cannot and should not replicate this.

The EA’s RoC process is, in principle, a detailed evidence-led examination of the effects (alone and in combination) of all current abstraction licences and discharge consents that potentially affect European designated sites and features. This is then used as a basis for affirming or, if necessary, varying or revoking the existing consents (known as ‘sustainability reductions’) to protect these sites from adverse effects. The WRMP is developed following or alongside the RoC process so that any sustainability reductions can be reflected or accommodated within the proposed solutions.

The sustainability reductions required by the RoC are fully accounted for within the modelled scenarios underpinning the WRMP (i.e. they explicitly form part of the assessment that determines which zones are in deficit). Under the RoC process and the WRMP process, the RoC changes (and non-changes to licences) are considered to be valid over the planning period (to 2035). Welsh Water use Water Available For Use (WAFU) from existing licences only (reduced through RoC and not reduced) when assessing the supply-demand balance over the planning period, incorporating increases in demand (the methods by which this is established are outlined in the WRMP). If deficits are shown, intervention options are required and implemented accordingly in the planning period.

This means that the Plan (and its underlying assumptions regarding the availability of water and sustainability of existing consents) is compliant with the RoC and so the Plan will only affect European sites through any new resource and production-side options it advocates to resolves deficits, and not through the existing permissions regime6.

Welsh Water has received formal indication of the sustainability reductions and measures that the Environment Agency considers necessary to prevent the risk of any abstraction-related significant adverse effects on certain European sites. The RoC modifications required of Welsh Water are summarised in Table 2.1.

6 It is recognised that, occasionally, the sustainability reductions agreed through the RoC process have been subsequently shown to be insufficient to address the effects of PWS abstraction on some sites (the most notable example is the River Ehen in Cumbria); Welsh Water are not aware of any current uncertainties regarding its abstractions or the RoC outcomes, although any such uncertainties that are subsequently identified can be addressed through the five-yearly WRMP review process.

Table 2.1 Welsh Water abstraction licences identified for modification under the Review of Consents

Welsh Water Abstraction WRZ SAC EAW Determination Point

Wye at Broomy Hill (Regulated river) Hereford C.U River Wye Flow impact

Wye at Monmouth (Mayhill) Monmouth River Wye Fish entrainment

Wye at Monmouth (Wye Transfer) Monmouth River Wye Flow impact

Wye at Elan Reservoir Elan / Builth and SEWCUS River Wye Flow impact

Wye at Pilleth Pilleth River Wye Flow impact

Wye at Builth Elan / Builth and SEWCUS River Wye Fish entrainment

Wye at Llyswen Llyswen River Wye Fish entrainment

Lugg at Byton Hereford River Wye Flow impact

Dunfield Borehole Hereford River Wye Flow impact

Usk Reservoir Tywi Gower / Brecon Portis River Usk Flow impact

Usk at Llantrisant SEWCUS (Llwynon/Sluvad) River Usk Flow impact and fish entrainment

Usk at Rhadyr (Prioress Mill) SEWCUS (Llwynon/Sluvad) River Usk Flow impact and fish entrainment

Usk at Brecon/Brecon boreholes Brecon/Portis River Usk Flow impact

Tywi at Manorafan Tywi C.U River Tywi Fish entrainment

Tywi at Nantgaredig Tywi C.U River Tywi Fish Entrainment

Llyn Brianne reservoir Tywi C.U River Tywi Reduced river temperature

Teifi at Llechryd Mid & South Ceredigion River Teifi Fish entrainment

Eastern Cleddau at Pont Hywel Pembrokeshire Cleddau Rivers Flow impact and fish entrainment

Eastern Cleddau at Canaston Pembrokeshire Cleddau Rivers Flow impact and fish entrainment

Western Cleddau at Crowhill Pembrokeshire Cleddau Rivers Flow impact and fish entrainment

Llyn Eiddew Mawr Lleyn Harlech Rhinog Lake level impacts

Llyn Morwynion Blaenau Ffestiniog Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt Lake level impacts

Llyn Cwellyn (impounding reservoir) North Eryri / Ynys Mon Afon Gwyrfai and Llyn Obstruction to fish passage Cwellyn

2.3.3 Uncertainty and determining significant or adverse effects

The WRMP is a high-level strategy for managing water resources across the Welsh Water supply area over the next 25 years. Due to its wide geographic scale and long-term outlook there are inevitably a large number of uncertainties inherent within it. It is therefore similar, in this respect, to a typical strategic land-use plan (such as a Core Strategy), which also has inherent uncertainties around its implementation, and hence over its likely effects. Usually, with strategy-level HRAs, uncertainty is addressed by including caveats and ‘avoidance measures’ or mitigation within the policy text to ensure that significant or adverse effects will not occur. This is possible

because the key components of the strategic plan (i.e. the policies) are inherently malleable from the outset, and can be easily abandoned or modified if required.

This approach is more difficult to apply directly to the WRMP because:

• the strategic nature of the WRMP ensures that there are fundamental limitations on the scheme details that are available for the HRA; but

• its principal components (the options that are proposed to resolve actual or predicted deficits) are generally specific schemes with a clear spatial component, rather than the broad policies that are characteristic of most strategies.

This means that potential effects on specific European sites are much easier to envisage or identify (due to the specific nature of the options and the known ‘sensitivities’ of the interest features), but much harder to quantify and assess (due to the strategic nature of the plan and frequent absence of detailed information on each option; i.e. the ‘exposure’ of an interest feature to a potential effect cannot necessarily be established).

Normally, where there is uncertainty over likely effects then additional data must be obtained until that uncertainty can be resolved; or ‘avoidance measures’ or mitigation specified that will remove the uncertainty; or the option should be abandoned and not included in the final plan. However, this can present difficulties for plans such as the WRMP since:

• the options have to solve specific deficits but are heavily constrained by existing sources and infrastructure, the availability of new resources, and the patterns of customer demand;

• it is possible that there will be several options where the precise effects are unclear, but which Welsh Water (under EA guidance) would wish to be able to explore in more detail at a later stage (and therefore would wish to include as preferred options within the WRMP); and

• the WRMP itself is a key component of the regulatory mechanism by which funding is secured for the detailed design, feasibility studies and investigations required for new supply-side measures.

Consequently, for some options there will inevitably be uncertainties which cannot be fully resolved at the strategic level, which in some cases would make a conclusion of ‘no significant effects’ or ‘no adverse effects’ difficult. Indeed, for some schemes it will only be possible to fully assess any potential effects at the pre-project planning stage or permit/order application stage, when certain specific details are known; for example: construction techniques or site-specific survey information. In addition, it may be several years before an option is employed, during which time other factors may alter the likely effects of the option.

For example, an option that proposes a new water transfer main between existing pumping stations will have a limited number of feasible routes. These can be theoretically assessed at a high-level for potential impacts on European sites, and routes with obvious and unavoidable ‘likely significant effects’ excluded from the WRMP. However, in most instances a specific route (or even a range of routes) will not be determined at the strategic level and any route would, in any case, be largely determined by design-stage constraints (e.g. land ownership; access; engineering feasibility; and so on). If the route had to cross a SAC river then ‘significant effects’ (at the strategic level) are clearly conceivable and arguably likely, which would suggest that the option should be abandoned. But it

is equally likely that most potential construction effects could almost certainly be avoided or suitably mitigated through project-level design (e.g. ensuring the use of existing road crossings for construction, or using trenchless techniques), which would itself be subject to a HRA at project level.

As a result, the HRA must consider and assess the specific options within the WRMP appropriately, whilst recognising (and mitigating) the inherent uncertainties within those options (i.e. the absence of detailed scheme design or parameters) and within the plan itself (i.e. so that the WRMP, as a whole, is compliant with the HRA regulations even if some residual uncertainty persists with some options).

2.3.4 Mitigating uncertainty and ‘down the line’ assessment

For most options, even at the strategic level, it will be clear if adverse effects are likely and in these instances the option should not be included as a preferred option within the WRMP since plans should not include proposals which would be likely to fail the Habitats Regulations tests at the project application stage. For other options, however, the effects may be uncertain and it is therefore important that this uncertainty is addressed either through additional investigation or (if this is not possible) appropriate mitigation measures that ensure that the plan is complaint with the Habitats Regulations.

For many options, particularly those involving construction, it is reasonable to assume that established mitigation measures which are typically successful can be employed at the project stage to avoid significant or adverse effects – for example, avoiding works near SPAs at certain times of the year. In these instances it is considered that the option can be included within the WRMP provided that any specific measures that are likely to be required are identified to ensure that they are appropriately addressed throughout the project planning process (e.g. constraints on the timing of construction activities).

Nevertheless, it is possible that the potential effects (or required mitigation) for some options cannot be clearly determined at the strategic-level. In these instances, current guidance7 indicates that it may be appropriate and acceptable for some assessment to be undertaken ‘down-the-line’ at a lower tier in the planning hierarchy, if:

• the earlier, or higher tier, plan appraisal cannot reasonably predict the effects on a European site in a meaningful way; whereas

• the later or lower tier plan, which will identify more precisely the nature, scale or location of development, and thus its potential effects, retains sufficient flexibility over the exact location, scale or nature of the proposal to enable an adverse effect on site integrity to be ruled out (even if that would mean ultimately deleting the proposal); and

• the later or lower tier appraisal is required as a matter of law or Government policy, so it can be relied upon.

Strictly, this is less appropriate for plans that sit immediately above the project stage, although the WRMP and its options will, in most instances, meet these criteria. For some schemes - particularly those schemes requiring ‘new

7 Tyldesley D (2012). Draft Guidance for Plan Making Authorities in Wales: The Appraisal of Plans Under the Habitats Directive. David Tyldesley and Associates, for the Countryside Council for Wales.

water’ or modifications to abstraction licences, but also larger construction schemes within or near European sites - there may be insufficient information available to determine ‘no likely significant effects’ or ‘no adverse effects’ with certainty at this level (i.e. meaningful assessment cannot be undertaken). All the Options will, of course be subject to project-level environmental assessment as part of the normal EIA, planning and/or EA consenting processes, which will necessarily include assessments of their potential to affect European sites during their construction or operation (i.e. HRA is required by law).

It is therefore considered acceptable to include these proposals within the WRMP, but complete the assessment of those options where uncertainty persists at a later stage, provided that the uncertainty that this creates is mitigated by the inclusion of alternative options which:

• will meet the required demand / deficit should the preferred option prove to have an unavoidable risk of adverse effects on the European sites in question; and

• will not themselves have any significant or adverse effect on any European sites.

It should be noted that this flexibility is desirable in any case, since it is possible that a ‘no LSE’ option might be subsequently proven to have significant or adverse effects when brought to the design stage. This approach allows for the WRMP to be compliant with the Habitats Regulations, since certainty for the plan as a whole is provided by the inclusion of alternative options with no LSE.

It is important to recognise that, in contrast to land-use plans, the statutory framework underpinning the WRMP does not provide the same implicit approval of derived, lower tier plans and projects that are ‘in accordance’ with it; or have the same influence over the decisions made on projects; or have the same direct or indirect legal effects for the use of land and the regulation of projects. Although the WRMP provides a framework for future water resource management it is not a rigid policy document or a set of proposals that cannot be deviated from once published. Also the WRMP itself is a key component of the regulatory mechanism by which funding is secured for the detailed design, feasibility studies and investigations required for new supply-side measures. Furthermore, the WRMP is (and must be) inherently flexible due to the formal five-yearly review process, which provides a clear mechanism for monitoring performance and an opportunity to adjust the proposals to reflect any changing circumstances. These measures can therefore be relied on to ensure that adverse effects do not occur as a result of the implementation of the WRMP.

3. Feasible Options Assessment

3.1 Overview

As noted, for strategic plans it is accepted that HRA should run as an iterative process alongside the plan development. Emerging proposals or options are assessed for their possible effects on European sites and modified or abandoned (as necessary) to ensure that the subsequently adopted plan is not likely to result in significant or adverse effects on any European sites. A key part of this is the assessment of the feasible options.

The assessment of the feasible options is primarily intended to guide the selection of options by Welsh Water and inform the scope of any further assessments or data collection that may be required if an option is considered as a preferred option. It also provides an opportunity for the statutory consultees identify any other potential effects that may need investigation if an option is progressed to the preferred option stage.

The assessment of the feasible options is not a formal ‘screening’ of the WRMP, and this term must be used carefully in the context of the HRA process as a whole. However, the assessment applies the methods and principles of ‘screening’, and the process will identify options and European sites that can realistically be excluded from further, more detailed assessment at the preferred options stage, where there are self-evidently no significant effects (i.e. they can be ‘screened out’ based on the available data). For example, a new distribution main sited within an existing road, with no European sites within 15km or downstream, is extremely unlikely to have any significant effects; the feasible options ‘screening’ report can therefore reasonably promote the option for consideration as a preferred option, and conclude that additional assessment or data is unlikely to be required to complete the HRA. Obviously the screening process is only formally reported following the selection of the preferred options, and the conclusions of the feasible options ‘screening’ are reviewed at that stage to ensure that they are remain correct.

Nevertheless, the feasible options ‘screening’ aims to identify potentially significant effects and therefore makes use of the typical screening terminology (e.g. ‘no LSE’) to facilitate this, even if it is not reaching a formal conclusion regarding the option. Ultimately, the feasible options assessment is looking to highlight those options which have a risk of ‘significant’ or ‘adverse’8 effects on a European site which (critically) are unlikely to be avoidable or mitigatable at either the strategy level or scheme level. These options with unavoidable risk of significant or adverse effects can then be discarded and not progressed to the preferred options stage.

It should be noted that a detailed ‘in combination’ assessment is not undertaken at the feasible options stage, in accordance with current guidance, although the potential for options to operate in combination with each other, and with other plans (e.g. the Drought Plan) is considered but not explicitly reported; the in combination assessment is completed at the preferred options stage, and alternative options selected if any of the preferred options have a risk of significant in combination effects.

8 Note that it is recognised that a conclusion of ‘adverse effects’ can only be made following AA; however, it is usually evident at the screening stage when adverse effects are likely, and therefore this can reasonably be used to exclude options that are unlikely to be acceptable from an HRA perspective at an early stage in the WRMP development.

3.2 Data Collection

3.2.1 WRMP Options

Data on the feasible options are provided by Welsh Water. These data include descriptions of each option; the likely outcomes (design yields/capacities); the scheme requirements; the type and indicative location of any works; and an outline of how the option would function. Further information on general water resources was obtained from Welsh Water (groundwater (GW) and surface water (SW) abstraction locations, source operational parameters, WRZ operation, emergency or drought plan operations) and the EA.

3.2.2 European Sites

Data on site locations; interest features; conservation objectives; and condition assessments were collected from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Natural England (NE) and Countryside Council for Wales (CCW). These data were used to determine the locations of the sites relative to the options; the condition, vulnerabilities and sensitivities of the sites and their interest features; and the approximate locations of the interest features within each site (if reported). European sites within 20km of the Welsh Water supply area and their interest features are listed in Appendix C, although it should be noted that sites outside this area were also considered where there was a potential risk of effects as a result of an option. Additional information is summarised in Appendix D (Interest feature abbreviations), Appendix E (Water resource dependent interest features) and Appendix F (Condition assessments).

3.3 Approach to feasible options

3.3.1 ‘Screening’ of the unconstrained list

The unconstrained list of options was subjected to a very coarse ‘screening’ (in conjunction with the SEA) to inform the selection of feasible options; this assessment is necessarily high level and primarily identifies those options that will self-evidently be unacceptable from (inter alia) an environmental perspective due to the high likelihood or certainty of adverse effects which cannot be avoided or mitigated. This stage is primarily to guide the plan development and is not formally reported.

3.3.2 ‘Screening’ of feasible options

The feasible options assessment aims to identify those options which have a risk of ‘significant’ or ‘adverse’ effects on a European site which (critically) are unlikely to be avoidable or mitigatable at either the strategy or scheme- level. Obviously it is not possible, or appropriate, to exhaustively consider the possible effects of each feasible option on every European site since many sites will not be vulnerable to the effects of an option (or the final WRMP as a whole) due to their location or the sensitivities of their interest features. Furthermore, some feasible options will self-evidently have substantial negative effects on European sites and so will not be progressed as

preferred options, limiting the value of detailed assessment at the feasible options stage. Accordingly, the ‘screening’ exercise undertaken for the feasible options aims to identify:

• those European sites which are likely to be significantly affected by an option (i.e. effects are likely and not negligible);

• those European sites where effects are uncertain as the result of an option;

• those European sites which are unlikely to be significantly affected by an option; and

• those options that are unlikely to affect any European site due to their nature or location.

The location and functional description of each option is used to determine its outcomes and likely effects, based on:

• the anticipated operation of each option and predicted zone of hydrological influence9;

• any predicted construction works required for each option10;

• European site interest features and their sensitivities;

• the exposure of the site or features to the likely effects of the option (i.e. presence of reasonable impact pathways).

In practice, for the feasible options, all European sites that are within 15km or directly downstream of a supply-side option11 are included in the ‘screening’, with sites beyond this considered on an option-by-option basis depending on the site interest features and how the option would function. This is considered to be a suitably precautionary approach that has important advantages due to the number of options and hence the benefits of a consistent approach across all options12.

9 Note that for groundwater sources and groundwater fed habitats, the EA consider that significant effects as a result of ground water abstractions are unlikely on European sites over 5 km from the abstraction (National EA guidance: Habitats Directive Stage 2 Review: Water Resources Authorisations – Practical Advice for Agency Water Resources Staff). This premise is applied to the ‘screening’ of the feasible options. 10 Note that the location of some works, particularly pipelines outside Welsh Water owned land, are only tentatively defined by the WRMP. In these instances, the ‘to’ and ‘from’ locations were identified and a broad study area used to identify any European sites that could potentially be affected by a route between these locations.

11 i.e. any abstraction, new infrastructure, changed discharge etc. associated with an option.

12 We recognise that ‘arbitrary’ buffers are not generally appropriate for HRA. However, since distance is a strong determinant of the scale and likelihood of effects the considered use of a suitably precautionary search area as a starting point for the screening (based on a thorough understanding of both the options and European site interest features) has some important advantages. Using buffers allows the systematic identification of European sites using GIS, so minimising the risk of sites or features being overlooked, and also ensures that sites where there are no reasonable impact pathways can be quickly and transparently excluded from any further screening or assessment. When assessing multiple options it also has the significant advantage of providing a consistent point of reference for consultees following the assessment process, and the ‘screening’ can therefore focus on the assessment of effects, rather than on explaining why certain sites may or may not have been considered in the screening of a particular option.

The feasible options ‘screening’ makes use of the typical screening terminology (e.g. ‘no LSE’) to facilitate the assessment, although it does not reach a formal conclusion regarding the option. Accordingly, the feasible options screening exercise will indicate whether ‘significant effects’ are likely, uncertain, or unlikely as a result of the implementation of a feasible option for each site and interest feature, as follows:

Table 3.1 Summary of significance assessment criteria

LSE?* Summary

No (N) The option will not, as far as can be reasonably determined, have any significant effects on the European site due to either: • the site or interest features not being sensitive to the likely outcomes of the WRMP (e.g. sites without water resource dependent13 interest features or mobile species); and/or • the site or interest features not being exposed to the likely outcomes of the WRMP due to the absence of impact pathways. This will include options where there is no reason to assume that works could not be accommodated without significant effects assuming that standard construction best-practice or mitigation that is common, established and known to be successful in similar situations, is applied. Feasible options in this category are recommended for consideration as preferred options, subject to future review as part of the iterative HRA process.

Uncertain (U) Options where a potential effect is conceivable and cannot be discounted, and the likely effects are therefore uncertain (at the feasible options stage). This is typically due to limitations on the information available, either in terms of the operation of the scheme, or the data available on the interest features of the sites. These options, if pursued as preferred options, may require some additional investigation to determine the likelihood of significant effects, and it is possible that the risk of effects cannot be quantified sufficiently at the strategic level to show no LSE (for example, substantial additional modelling or site-specific investigation may be required). Adverse effects are not necessarily likely (should appropriate assessment be undertaken) but generic mitigation measures may not be sufficient to ensure no LSE. Feasible options in this category may be recommended for consideration as preferred options, subject to future review as part of the iterative HRA process, but may require some additional information to support their inclusion in the WRMP potentially including a more formal ‘appropriate assessment’ stage if effects cannot be clearly demonstrated to be negligible with additional information.

Yes (Y) Significant effects (i.e. not negligible or inconsequential) on a European site are very likely or certain due to the scale/ nature/location of the Option proposals, or the sensitivity and distribution of the interest features within /near the European site. Although a full appropriate assessment is not undertaken at this stage, adverse effects may be more likely (or even certain) if the scheme is taken forward as a preferred option and it is likely that extensive and uncertain mitigation will be required following scheme-level investigations. Feasible options in this category are not recommended for consideration as preferred options (although additional information may allow a re-assessment) as there appears, at the strategic level, to be a substantial risk of significant and potentially adverse effects, and the option would probably have to rely substantially on detailed ‘down-the-line’ assessment, which is unlikely to be appropriate for inclusion in the WRMP.

*LSE – Likely Significant Effects

Although the feasible options ‘screening’ does not make a formal judgment on significance of any effects, some options will be ‘screened out’ of further assessment, on the basis that they cannot negatively affect any European sites. This is likely to include all ‘customer-side’ options (i.e. options designed to reduce water use such as metering or provision of water butts) and leakage reduction options14 (although this will obviously be reviewed to

13 Based on data within the National EA guidance Habitats Directive Stage 2 Review: Water Resources Authorisations – Practical Advice for Agency Water Resources Staff.

14 The only realistic mechanism for a negative effect would be through direct encroachment at the local-level (for example a leaking pipe might be located in or near an SAC), but this cannot be meaningfully assessed at the strategic level since location-

ensure that the conclusions are robust). Similarly, some European sites and interest features will self-evidently be unaffected by the delivery of the WRMP, due to either the site or interest features not being sensitive to the likely outcomes of the WRMP (e.g. sites without water-resource dependent15 interest features or mobile species); and / or the site or interest features not being exposed to the likely outcomes of the WRMP due to the absence of impact pathways.

3.3.3 Key assumptions

Due to the strategic nature of the WRMP, and its position in the water resources planning cycle, there are often data gaps and uncertainties surrounding the options that cannot necessarily be fully resolved without substantial additional investigation, including field investigation. As a result it is necessary to make some broad assumptions when assessing the options that reflect the best available data. These include the following:

• Construction:

- WW have agreed pipelines routes will be sited within existing roads (unless otherwise stated) to minimise their environmental impact, unless scheme-specific routing studies subsequently demonstrate that alternative (non-road) routes will have no adverse effects on any European site.

- if river crossing points are unavailable construction will be by a non-invasive techniques (e.g. directional drilling) which avoid direct effects on the watercourse;

- unless explicitly noted, construction works will be located outside all European sites (i.e. no direct encroachment);

- normal best-practice, including the measures outlined in Appendix J, will be applied to all schemes as a minimum and will be successful in avoiding ‘incidental’ and ‘predictable’ impacts (pollution incidents; disturbance of SPA birds due to inappropriate timing of works etc.);

- standard best-practice mitigation and avoidance measures for specific features will be applied at the scheme-level and will be successful (e.g. avoiding construction near an estuarine SPA during winter).

• Operation:

- options that involve the use of ‘spare water’ within existing licensed volumes and operating parameters / conditions are generally likely to be acceptable, subject to a thorough understanding of the effects of any change in operation relative to the status quo;

- the availability of water from existing sources (e.g. through licence variations) is based on PW data, discussions with the EA and other available data including the Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS) documents; specific information is not available without specific investigations, which would form part of the package (i.e. the precise location and severity of most leakages is not known ahead of detection). 15 Based on data within the National EA guidance Habitats Directive Stage 2 Review: Water Resources Authorisations – Practical Advice for Agency Water Resources Staff

- the availability of ‘new water’ (e.g. development of new boreholes; new river abstractions) is based on WW’s discussions with the EA and the best-available data including the CAMS documents, and which are assumed to be correct subject to further investigation at the scheme level16;

- all new licence applications and amendments will be subject to scheme-level HRA before the licence can be amended, and will not be pursued if subsequent investigation demonstrates that significant adverse effects are likely.

3.3.4 Avoidance measures and incorporated mitigation

In accordance with best-practice, the ‘screening’ takes account of ‘designed in’ mitigation; appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures for construction effects are therefore identified in Appendix J to this report and it is considered (based on professional experience) that the majority of potential construction effects can almost certainly be avoided or mitigated at the project-level using these measures or similar. In these instances an assessment of ‘no likely significant effects’ is reached on the assumption that the measures proposed within Appendix J will be incorporated into the WRMP, and implemented at the project stage (the normal consenting mechanisms will obviously ensure that these are delivered).

Options where scheme-specific mitigation is likely to be required (in addition to the generic measures identified in Appendix J) are not necessarily excluded from consideration as preferred options; in these instances appropriate measures will be identified at the preferred options stage17. For the operational aspects of supply-side options, potential avoidance measures are considered where these have been determined through discussion between EAW and DCWW, although in most instances specific operational mitigation that may be appropriate (e.g. ‘hands-off’ flows, etc.) for an option cannot necessarily be determined at this stage.

16 This is particularly relevant for unexploited aquifers that have not been characterised by groundwater models (which would be required prior to any licence application). 17 For example, a pipeline crossing an SAC river may require specific measures (such as timing of works to avoid key migration periods), which can be reasonably identified and included if the option is selected as a preferred option. As noted, the feasible options ‘screening’ is aiming to identify those options that almost certainly cannot be accommodated without significant effects, or mitigated.

4. Summary of Feasible Options Assessment

4.1 Feasible demand-side and leakage reduction options

‘Demand side measures’ which are designed to reduce water demand, such as provision of water butts or metering are included within the feasible options list. If implemented, the ‘demand side measures’ will collectively have a positive effect on European sites by reducing water demand. Some ‘supply-side’ options will also effectively reduce ‘demand’, most notably leakage reduction. With these type of option the only realistic mechanism for a negative effect would be through direct encroachment at the local-level (for example a leaking pipe might be located in or near an SAC), but the likelihood of this cannot be identified or meaningfully assessed at the strategic level since location-specific information on the measures is not available without specific investigations, which would form part of the package (for example, the precise location and severity of most leakages is not known ahead of detection, and a ‘leakage option’ will simply comprise measures to improve leakage detection rather than commitments to repair specific leaks). In these instances, normal best-practice and project-level environmental controls (including those outlined in Appendix J) will ensure that any potential effects are appropriately addressed at the scheme level. As a result, the demand-side and leakage options are ‘screened-out’ and not considered further within the HRA, although the final WRMP will include the measures detailed in Appendix J (or similar).

4.2 Feasible supply-side options

The HRA focuses on the supply-side options and their potential effects (i.e. a standard source-pathway-receptor approach to assessment). The options will generally require one or more of the following:

• development of new surface or groundwater sources, or desalination of sea water (‘new water’);

• modification of an existing licence to alter the operational and network regime (e.g. additional abstraction);

• use of ‘spare water’ from existing licensed sources through operational adjustments or capital works (e.g. new treatment facilities);

• re-instatement of existing, mothballed sources (with or without current licences);

• capital works to the distribution network; or

• transferring water from adjacent water companies with a supply demand surplus.

The assessment considers both the implementation (construction, if required) and operation effects of the options. In general, options that are within currently licensed volumes (either making use of spare capacity within existing licences, or re-instating mothballed sources where the licence has been retained) are unlikely to have operational effects (see Section 2.3.2), although there will be some exceptions (for example, some raw water transfers between catchments). Options that do not require construction will not have construction effects.

The deficit zones and hence feasible options are determined by Welsh Water, and reviewed as the WRMP progresses. The feasible options initially assessed are listed in Table 4.1; some additional feasible options identified by Welsh Water following the December 2012 assessment are listed in Table 4.2. Note that Option 8026.15 (Licence variation to transfer 5Ml/d from Llys-y-Fran to Preseli WTW) was assessed in the original tranche of options, but subsequent investigations have shown that this option can only be achieved through commercial agreement with another abstractor and is therefore not considered feasible at this time, and so it has been removed from the assessment.

The results of the screening assessments are summarised in Table 4.3 (additional post-December 2012 options have an asterisk). The site-specific details of the assessment are provided in Appendix G. The likelihood of significant effects is categorised for each European site and each option as per Table 3.1 (Section 3.3.2).

Table 4.1 Feasible options

WRZ Option No. Option name

N Eryri/Ynys Mon 8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

8001.4 New Crug WTW and utilisation of existing Afon Rhythallt source

8001.6 New abstraction at Llyn Cowlyd - new WTW

8001.7 Licence Variation at Llyn Cwellyn and Cwellyn WTW upgrade

8001.8 Utilisation of abstraction from Afon Seiont - upgrade Mynydd Llandygai WTW.

8001.10 Dam Raising Ffynnon Llugwy

8001.11 Desalination North Eryri/Ynys Mon WRZ

8001.12 Dam Raising at Alaw Reservoir

8001.19 Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir

Bala 8020.1 Abstraction licence variation and upgrade Llidiardau WTW

8020.9 WRZ transfer from Alwen Dee (new route)

Tywyn Aberdyfi 8021.3 New abstraction from Afon Dysynni at Pont y Garth (to Pen y Bont WTW)

8021.4 Desalination Tywyn Aberdyfi WRZ

8021.5 New abstraction from Afon Dyfi

South Meirionydd 8036.1 Upgrade Penycefn WTW

8036.7 Transfer water from Tywyn Aberdyfi and utilise Gwastadgoed source

Brecon 8108.4 River regulation from Usk reservoir

8108.5 Increased direct abstraction from Usk Reservoir to Portis.

Pembrokeshire 8206.1 Re-instate Milton source for industrial / with WTW

8206.3 Dam-raising of Llysyfran

8206.5 Increased groundwater abstraction at Pendine

8206.6 Upgrade Middle Mill WTW

8206.7 Re-instate Parc springs

Table 4.1 (cont’d.) Feasible options

WRZ Option No. Option name

Pembrokeshire 8206.9 Desalination Pembrokeshire WRZ

8206.10 Abstraction from the Afon Taf

8206.11 Transfer water from Bolton Hill WTW to Preseli WTW

Note that Option 8026.15 (Licence variation to transfer 5Ml/d from Llys-y-Fran to Preseli WTW) was assessed in the original tranche of options, but subsequent investigations have shown that this option would not produce any significant deployable output and so it has been removed from the assessment.

Table 4.2 Additional feasible options (post feasible options assessment, December 2012)

WRZ Option No. Option name

N Eryri/Ynys Mon 8001.23 Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir

Tywyn Aberdyfi 8021.6 Transfer from new Abergynolwyn WTW

South Meirionydd 8036.8 New WTW at Abergynolwyn and transfer to Gwastadgoed

8036.9 Transfer water from Gwastadgoed to Pen y Cefn

Brecon Portis 8108.7 Penycrug to Portis network upgrade.

Brecon Portis 8108.8 Portis WTW upgrade.

Pembrokeshire 8206.18 Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire Transfer

Table 4.3 Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to This proposal would be an inter-basin transfer of untreated water, although there will be no storage or discharge of the U N Yes – potential effects Cwellyn WTW raw water (therefore no risk of transfer of species etc.). This option would require construction works near this the Afon avoidable but option- Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC, but there would be no direct impact either through construction (no new intakes / outfalls specific mitigation may etc) or operation (water from the Afon Rhythallt would be pumped to Cwellyn WTW for treatment). All potential be required construction impacts could be managed through normal construction best practice, although construction may need to be timed to minimise potential impacts on migratory fish (salmon). The Y Fenai a Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC is downstream of the proposed abstraction, although operational effects are not anticipated as the option would not require any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from the Afon Rhythallt and would operate within the existing licence parameters. No other sites are likely to be impacted by the scheme.

8001.4 New Crug WTW and utilisation The scheme would require construction works within 900m of the Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC (but over 2km via the N N Yes – no LSE assuming of existing Afon Rhythallt source nearest tributary). No significant construction effects would be anticipated assuming normal measures. The Y Fenai a best practice Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC is downstream of the proposed abstraction, although operational effects are not anticipated as the option would not require any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from the Afon Rhythallt and would operate within the existing licence parameters. No other sites are likely to be impacted by the scheme.

8001.6 New abstraction at Llyn Cowlyd - The pipeline is likely to be located partly within the Eryri / Snowdonia SAC and therefore any construction works are likely Y N Avoid if possible – new WTW to result in significant effects; it is likely that adverse effects could be avoided at the project level, depending on the exact significant effects likely parameters of the scheme (size of pipe, construction techniques etc.) but this cannot be relied on. No other sites are likely to be affected.

8001.7 Licence Variation at Llyn The Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC would be vulnerable to construction effects (new intake) and operational effects Y U Avoid if possible – Cwellyn and Cwellyn WTW (increased abstraction). The potential construction impacts could probably be managed to avoid adverse effects (e.g. significant effects likely upgrade timing of works, appropriate working techniques etc.) with additional project-specific survey / mitigation / avoidance.

Some operational impacts can also be avoided (e.g. provision of fish screens on intake etc.). However, it is thought that the SAC is currently ‘over-licensed’ and whilst additional abstraction may not make it ‘over-abstracted’ there is clearly a high risk of significant or adverse effects on some features. This could only be determined with additional project-specific data. The scheme may reduce flows from the Afon Gwyrfai into the Y Fenai a Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC, which may affect any freshwater dependent / associated features within the estuary at this point. No other sites are likely to be significantly affected. Not recommended as preferred option.

Table 4.4 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8001.8 Utilisation of abstraction from The proposed pipeline will require construction work adjacent to Eryri / Snowdonia SAC, although the works will U N Yes – potential effects Afon Seiont - upgrade Mynydd (probably) be located within a C-Road that is excluded from the SAC. Construction effects are therefore possible but can avoidable but option- Llandygai WTW. be avoided with normal best-practice construction mitigation. The scheme would be within existing licensed volumes and specific mitigation may therefore operational effects would not be expected. be required

8001.10 Dam Raising Ffynnon Llugwy The reservoir and pipeline are within the Eryri / Snowdonia SAC and therefore any construction works are likely to result Y N Possibly - more info in significant effects; it is possible that adverse effects could be avoided at the project level, depending on the exact required on scheme parameters of the scheme (size of pipe, construction techniques etc.). Raising the reservoir should not in itself have significant effects as the reservoir will simply be restored to its designed depth, although again construction works will affect the SAC. It is possible that there will be some operational effects since the reservoir currently spills fairly constantly to the Afon Llugwy; compensation flows for this may need to be arranged, although the abstraction would be within the terms of the existing licence and the Llugwy does not support any of the SAC interest features. No other sites would be affected.

8001.11 Desalination North Eryri/Ynys Construction of intake and outfall will directly affect the Y Fenai a Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC, which Y Y No – significant and Mon WRZ will result in significant effects on the site. The intake for the desal. plant may be located near the mouth of Foryd Bay, adverse effects likely, which is where the Afon Gwyrfai (part of Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC) discharges to the Menai. Operation will result unlikely to be avoidable in discharge of brine which may have localised effects on some features depending on dilution profiles; fish entrainment or mitigatable also possible. Y Twyni o Abermenai i Aberffraw/ Abermenai to Aberffraw Dunes SAC is also located close to the

proposed works, and although the SAC interest features are not likely to be significantly exposed or sensitive to the effects of the scheme there remains a risk that the integrity of the site could be affected. Features of the Y Fenai a Bae Conwy/ Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC and Glannau Môn: Cors heli / Anglesey Coast: Saltmarsh SAC are also likely to be vulnerable to the effects of the scheme. Precise effects can only be accurately determined with modelling etc. and detailed design but are likely to be significant. Adverse effects are a strong possibility depending on the features present within the vicinity of the proposed works, although it should be noted that the plant will not operate continuously.

8001.12 Dam Raising at Alaw Reservoir The reservoir is at least 5km from the nearest European site and not directly linked to any other sites (e.g. by N N Yes – no LSE assuming watercourses etc). Operation of the scheme would not have any hydrological effects. best practice

8001.19 Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir Cefni reservoir is approximately 2km from Corsydd Môn/ Anglesey Fens SAC and Corsydd Môn a Llyn/ Anglesey and N U Possibly - more info Llyn Fens Ramsar, although all components of these sites are 'upstream' of the likely works. The reservoir overflows to required on scheme the Afon Cefni which flows south-west to Maltraeth. Operation of the scheme may reduce winter flows to the Afon Cefni, which ultimately runs through Glannau Môn: Cors heli / Anglesey Coast: Saltmarsh SAC; this may be affected although these effects will be minimal and unlikely to have a significant effect on the SAC.

Table 4.4 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8001.23* Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir Cwm Dulyn WTW currently transfers water into the Criccieth area (in the Lleyn Harlech Water Resource Zone) via Pant N N Yes – no LSE due to Glas. The planned construction of a new superworks at Dolbenmaen (planning permission has been granted subject to absence of impact conditions) allows the transfer of water into NEYM from Cwm Dulyn WTW to provide more deployable output. This pathways option would utilise existing spare treated water within licence, and would only require a change of valving to allow Cwm Dulyn to supply the Nebo demand area in NEYM resource zone; no other infrastructure would be required. Therefore, there are no reasonable pathways for any effects to occur, and as a result the option will have no significant effects on any European sites.

8020.1 Abstraction licence variation and The option would increase abstraction from Llyn Arenig Fawr, which is part of the Migneint–Arenig–Dduallt SAC N Y Avoid if possible – upgrade Llidiardau WTW (Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters feature). The WTW would require upgrading, although this is located significant effects likely outside the SAC. This increase in abstraction would certainly have a significant effect on the lake and hence the Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters feature and the SAC. Additional data / modelling may be required to determine whether the effects would be adverse, although there is a likelihood that it would be considered as such. No other features within this SAC are likely to be affected by the option, and nor will any other sites (no linkages / impact pathways).

8020.9 WRZ transfer from Alwen Dee The scheme will operate within the terms of the existing licence and therefore significant operational effects would not be U N Yes – potential effects (new route) anticipated. The A494 runs alongside the River Dee and therefore the pipeline construction would be in close proximity to avoidable but option- the River Dee and Bala Lake SAC at several points along the route. This may require specific mitigation measures for specific mitigation may the scheme level (e.g. timing construction to avoid key migration periods) but significant effects would not be anticipated be required assuming normal good practice. The Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains SAC is near to the likely pipeline route at Corwen, but again there will be no direct effects and no reason to assume that the works cannot be accommodated without significant effects. No other sites are likely to be affected.

8021.3 New abstraction from Afon The scheme is mostly likely to affect the Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC, which is the main downstream receptor of N U Possibly - more info Dysynni at Pont y Garth (to Pen the Afon Dysynni. This is unlikely to be affected by construction (assuming normal measures); the increased abstraction required on scheme y Bont WTW) would reduce flows into the SAC from the Afon Dysynni at certain times; the effects of this are uncertain but unlikely to be significant due to the magnitude of the effects. The pipeline is likely to be sited in existing roads. Other sites may be affected by construction (notably Bird's Rock SPA) but these can be avoided by normal best-practice.

Table 4.4 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8021.4 Desalination Tywyn Aberdyfi Operation will result in the discharge of brine with a significantly different salinity from the seawater, which is likely to U Y Avoid if possible – WRZ have significant localised effects on some features of the Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC significant effects likely depending on dilution profiles and the location of the features. It should be noted that none of the interest features are

specifically identified in the area of the desal plant or its infrastructure, and therefore it is possible that the effects of the scheme will not be adverse (although this can only be determined with further, scheme-specific studies). Other sites are unlikely to be affected by construction or operation, although the Dyfi Estuary component of the Cors Fochno and Dyfi Ramsar may be vulnerable to the scheme operation.

8021.5 New abstraction from Afon Dyfi The abstraction from the Afon Dyfi would be likely to affect the suite of sites within the Dyfi Estuary as a result of U U Possibly - more info operation (Cors Fochno and Dyfi Ramsar, Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi SPA, Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the required on scheme Sarnau SAC) although the small scale of the abstraction would suggest that impacts are unlikely to be adverse. Construction effects are possible but can probably be avoided with normal best practice. Options A and B differ in pipeline route, although this will not significantly alter the likely effects.

8021.6* Transfer from South Meirionydd This option would transfer water from a new WTW at Abergynolwyn in South Meirionydd WRZ to supplement supply from N N Yes – no LSE assuming Pen y Bont WTW in Tywyn Aberdyfi. It would require a new WTW at Abergynolwyn and a new treated water main from best practice Abergynolwyn to Pen y Bont WTW. The option would not require any new resource, and the pipeline would be located within an existing road. The nearest sites are Bird’s Rock SPA (1km) and Cadair Idris SAC, although these are unlikely to be affected by the option.

8036.1 Upgrade Penycefn WTW The scheme would allow the currently licensed volumes to be abstracted from the reservoir and therefore operational N N Yes – no LSE assuming effects as a result of this are unlikely. Construction works will be within or adjacent to the existing WTW. Any effects are best practice therefore likely to be local only and easily avoided with best-practice measures.

8036.7 Transfer water from Tywyn This option would be within the terms of the existing licence and therefore operational effects would not be anticipated; N N Yes – no LSE assuming Aberdyfi and utilise the only effects would be associated with the construction of mains to transfer the water for treatment and then return to best practice Gwastadgoed source the SRV. The precise route to the WTW would be cross country, following contours (i.e. gravity main), although the precise route of the return pipeline is uncertain; this may be pumped along main roads (less lift required) to return it to the SRV. The only site at risk of effects is Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC, which may be vulnerable to construction, although such effects can be avoided with best practice measures.

Table 4.4 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8036.8* New WTW at Abergynolwyn and This option would construct a new WTW at Abergynolwyn, fed by a new abstraction from the Afon Dysynni. This option N U Possibly - more info transfer to Gwastadgoed would require: a new intake and raw water pipeline from Afon Dysynni; a new water treatment works at Abergynolwyn on required on operation of site of existing works; and a new treated water pipeline from Abergynolwyn to Gwastadcoed Service Reservoir to supply scheme the Gwastadcoed demand area. The scheme is mostly likely to affect the Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC, which is the main downstream receptor of the Afon Dysynni. This is unlikely to be affected by construction (assuming normal measures); the increased abstraction would reduce flows into the SAC from the Afon Dysynni at certain times; the effects of this are uncertain but unlikely to be significant due to the magnitude of the effects. The pipeline is likely to be sited in existing roads. Other sites may be affected by construction (notably Bird's Rock SPA) but these can be avoided by normal best-practice.

8036.9* Transfer water from This option would transfer spare treated water to Pen y Cefn service reservoir in the north of South Meirionydd zone to N N Yes – no LSE assuming Gwastadgoed to Pen y Cefn supply this demand area. This option would require: a new pumping station at Gwastadcoed SRV and a new treated best practice water main from Gwastadcoed SRV to Pen y Cefn SRV, which would be located in the A493. It is a network solution, so

no operational effects would be expected. There are several SAC units adjecent to and within 1km of the A493 in this location including units of the Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat Sites SAC and Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau. There is a risk of construction effects but these can almost certainly be managed with normal best practice and no significant effects would be expected.

8108.4 River regulation from Usk This option was assessed as a preferred option in the previous HRA, which concluded that significant effects on the N Y Possibly - more info reservoir River Usk SAC are likely as a result of the scheme, but that these would not be adverse - it was accepted that additional required on scheme assessment would be required to confirm this. No other sites were likely to be affected, including the Severn Estuary suite of sites.

8108.5 Increased direct abstraction from Precise operation of the scheme uncertain and therefore additional information required to determine screening N Y Avoid if possible – Usk Reservoir to Portis. conclusions; however, likely that additional abstraction will have significant effects on some interest features of the Usk significant effects likely depending on how scheme operates (compensation flows maintained?) and effects on spillage.

8108.7* Penycrug to Portis network The Aberbran supply area is currently fed by a main from Portis WTW. The option is to supply Aberbran from Brecon N N Yes – no LSE assuming upgrade. WTW instead. This will free up 0.9 Ml/d at Portis WTW to deal with future demand increases. An upgrade of 1km of main best practice leading from Pen y Crug will be required. The works will be within 1km of the River Usk SAC but it is expected that all

potential construction effects could be managed / avoided with normal best-practice. There will be no operational effects.

Table 4.4 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8108.8* Portis WTW upgrade The Aberbran supply area is currently fed by a main from Portis WTW. This option would upgrade the treatment works to N N Yes – no LSE assuming maximise the usage of the existing abstraction licence. All works would be within the existing operational site boundary. best practice The works will be within 1km of the River Usk SAC but it is expected that all potential construction effects could be

managed / avoided with normal best-practice. There will be no operational effects.

8206.1a/b Re-instate Milton source for This option was previously assessed as a preferred option in the 2011 WRMP, and it was concluded that the scheme U U Yes – potential effects industrial / with WTW was unlikely to have any significant adverse effect. The only site that is potentially affected is Pembrokeshire Marine / avoidable but option- Sir Benfro Forol SAC. The closest features are Estuaries; Mudflats and Sandflats; and Atlantic Salt Meadows, which are specific mitigation may all present within Radford Pill (the estuary inlet closest to Milton). There is no data available on the current condition of be required these features within the Radford Pill, although the SSSI data for this area does not suggest that the current abstraction regime is negatively affecting any of the shared (i.e. SAC) interest features. It is considered that the effects of the abstraction on these features (and therefore this SAC) are likely to be negligible, particularly as the abstraction would be within the parameters of the existing usage. However, it is may not be possible to conclude no LSE and hence no adverse effect without additional scheme-specific studies. There is a small risk of effects on the interest features of the Pembrokeshire Bat Sites and Bosherston Lakes/ Safleoedd Ystlum Sir Benfro a Llynnoedd Bosherston SAC, depending on pipeline route and impact on hedges etc but unlikely to be significant.

8206.3 Dam-raising of Llysyfran Llys-y-Fran reservoir is directly online with the Cleddau Rivers SAC; the river may be directly or indirectly affected by Y Y Avoid if possible – construction works on the dam (e.g. sediment release etc), although it may be possible to mitigate this with appropriate significant effects likely construction measures. The future operating parameters for the reservoir are uncertain, but it is likely that the current flow regime will be maintained at least and the additional water should allow greater flexibility in operation, including release of compensation flows. The precise effects cannot be determined without scheme-specific modelling and assessment, but may not be adverse. The dam is thought to act as a barrier to some fish species, and modification may provide an opportunity to reduce the effect through the installation of additional measures. However, the scheme will certainly have significant effects on this site, and may affect some species due to alterations in water temperatures associated with water release from a deeper reservoir.

Table 4.4 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8206.5 Increased groundwater The borehole would be within 500m of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC, although it is not clear how water from N U Possibly - more info abstraction at Pendine the aquifer interacts with the SAC; streams from inland appear to sink into the aquifer but do not re-appear as a clear required on scheme channel before the coastline. Most of the abstraction-sensitive features of the SAC are not present in the immediate

location (e.g. estuaries, Atlantic salt meadows, Salicornia and other annuals) although the area does have shallow inlets and bays and sandflats; however, these features are probably more vulnerable to morphological variation associated with channels. The hydrological linkages between the Pendine source aquifer and the GWDTEs and species of the Laugharne and Pendine Burrows SSSI (closest component of the Carmarthen Bay Dunes SAC), including Fen orchid and Humid dune slacks, are uncertain at this stage and it is not clear without additional investigation whether increasing abstraction from this borehole would affect the interest features of the site by reducing GW levels. All construction effects can be avoided / mitigated with standard best-practice.

8206.6a/b Upgrade Middle Mill WTW The Afon Solva flows to the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC; increased abstraction would reduce the freshwater input to the N U Possibly - more info SAC from this source, although the volume of flow from the river is understood to be relatively minor. The reduction in required on scheme flow is not certain at this stage and would need to be determined, but it would seem unlikely that the scheme would adversely affect the SAC although significant local effects are possible. The abstraction-sensitive features of North West Pembrokeshire Commons SAC are not exposed to the scheme - the abstraction is from the river, and they are located on a plateau above the abstraction point (therefore no risk of drawdown). Construction would be limited to the existing WTW.

8206.7 Re-instate Parc springs This option utilises springs that currently flow to the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC, and flows may be reduced (over those N N Yes – no LSE assuming currently experienced) if the supply is re-instated; however, this would be within the terms of the existing licence, which best practice has not been identified as having a significant effect on this SAC through the RoC. It would therefore be assumed that the Option would not result in significant effects on the SAC, although some local effects may occur depending on the precise effect on the springs.

8206.9 Desalination Pembrokeshire Construction of intake and outfall will directly affect the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC, which will result in significant effects Y Y No – significant and WRZ on the site. Operation will result in discharge of brine which may have localised effects on some features depending on adverse effects likely, dilution profiles; fish entrainment is also possible. Effects can only be accurately determined with modelling etc. and unlikely to be avoidable detailed design. The Cleddau Rivers SAC is not linked to the site by a direct impact pathway but some mobile interest or mitigatable features may be vulnerable to the effects of the scheme (indirectly via possible effects on the fish species of Pembrokeshire Marine SAC).

Table 4.4 (cont’d.) Summary of feasible options assessment

Option Summary assessment LSE? Consider as PO?

C O

8206.10 Abstraction from the Afon Taf The abstraction would take additional water from the Afon Taf, which the ‘Tywi, Taf and Gwendraeth’ CAMS states is N U Possibly - more info likely to be available; the CAMS takes into account likely effects on SACs and therefore it may be possible to assume required on scheme that adverse effects on Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC are unlikely, although the scale of any effect could only be

determined with additional investigations in support of a licence application. The Afon Taf estuary contains several features that are potentially vulnerable to abstraction (e.g. estuaries, Atlantic salt meadows, Salicornia and other annuals). The Afon Tywi SAC also discharges to Carmarthen Bay and supports several features that are shared with the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC, and which could therefore potentially be vulnerable to abstraction from the Taf when in residence in the estuary. Any effect, however, is likely to be weak and not adverse.

8206.11 Transfer water from Bolton Hill The transfer main would have to cross both branches of the western Cleddau Rivers SAC, although the proposed route U N Yes – potential effects WTW to Preseli WTW is sited within existing roads through Haverfordwest; however, there is a potential for construction impacts on the SAC if avoidable but option- construction work is not appropriately controlled or mitigated. Appropriate mitigation (other than normal good working specific mitigation may practices) cannot be determined at this level however there is no reason to assume that the proposed works could not be be required undertaken and accommodated without adverse effects on the SAC since the proposed works are not particularly substantial. It may be necessary to time works to avoid impacts on migrating fish species, although this is unlikely to be a significant issue. The estuarine habitats and mobile species of the Pembroke Marine SAC are likely to be similarly vulnerable to unmitigated construction, although again there is nothing to suggest that the scheme could not avoid significant effects using standard best-practice. No other sites are likely to be significantly affected

8206.18* Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire The option involves using spare resource from Felindre WTW in Tywi Gower WRZ to supply the Capel Dewi supply area. N N Yes – potential effects Transfer Capel Dewi resource will then be used to supply the Pendine area. The option requires a new pipeline between Foel avoidable but option- Ebenezer service reservoir in Tywi zone and Brandy Hill and Pendine SRVs in Pembrokeshire. It is assumed that the specific mitigation may pipelines will be located within existing roadways. The transfer main would have to cross the Carmarthen Bay and be required Estuaries SAC (on the Afon Taf near St. Clears) and other tributaries of this SAC. Appropriate mitigation (other than

normal good working practices) cannot be determined at this level however there is no reason to assume that the proposed works could not be undertaken and accommodated without adverse effects on the SAC since the proposed works are not particularly substantial. It may be necessary to time works to avoid impacts on migrating fish species, although this is unlikely to be a significant issue. The estuarine habitats and mobile species of the Afon Tywi SAC are likely to be similarly vulnerable to unmitigated construction, although again there is nothing to suggest that the scheme could not avoid significant effects using standard best-practice. No other sites are likely to be significantly affected. No significant operational effects are likely.

5. Preferred Options Assessment

5.1 Approach

5.1.1 Assessment

Following from the preliminary screening of feasible options, the preferred options were re-screened and then assessed for their likely impacts on European sites. For each option, the European sites that may be affected are identified (based on the criteria used for the feasible options), and a determination of ‘LSE’ made on a site-by-site basis (with the outcomes recorded using the criteria summarised in Table 3.1). As before, ‘no LSE’ is not concluded for an option unless there are no clear or reasonable impact pathways, or where effects are likely to be negligible or inconsequential, or it is reasonable to assume that standard and established measures (e.g. best-practice construction) will be sufficient to ensure that significant effects are avoided. Subsequently, an assessment of whether the option is likely to adversely affect the integrity of the European sites is made.

The evidence underpinning the screening and assessment is summarised in the tables below, with the conclusion of both the feasible options screening stage and (if necessary) the appropriate assessment stage provided. The stages are not ‘combined’ but are presented within the same tables for clarity; this is considered an acceptable approach as the information available for both screening and assessment is fundamentally the same (limited additional information can be bought to bear for the appropriate assessment stage that is not available at screening), and it reduces the replication within the documentation of the assessments. The assessment tables also identify measures that should be included within the WRMP to help avoid significant or adverse effects.

To allow the WRMP to pass the HRA test, any options with potential adverse effects have had a ‘preferred alternative’ identified from the feasible options list, which has also been assessed (alone and in combination). A conclusion of ‘no adverse effects’ is made where there is sufficient confidence that significant or adverse effects can be avoided using either specific measures such as timetabling construction (to be included within the dWRMP), or can clearly be avoided at the project level using established measures.

5.1.2 In-combination Effects

HRA requires that the effects of other projects, plans or programmes be considered for effects on European sites ‘in combination’ with the WRMP. There is limited guidance on the precise scope of ‘in combination’ assessments for strategies, particularly with respect to the levels within the planning hierarchy at which ‘in combination’ effects should be considered. The ‘two-tier’ nature of the WRMP (i.e. a strategy with specific schemes) also complicates this assessment.

Broadly, it is considered that the WRMP could have the following in combination effects:

• within-plan effects - i.e. separate options within the WRMP affecting the same European site(s);

• between-plan abstraction effects - i.e. effects with other abstractions, in association with or driven by other plans (for example, other water company WRMPs);

• other between-plan effects - i.e. 'in combination' with non-abstraction activities promoted by other plans, or other projects - for example, with flood risk management plans.

• between-project effects – i.e. effects of a specific option with other specific projects and developments.

In undertaking the ‘in combination’ assessment it is critical to note that:

• the Review of Consents (RoC) process has completed an ‘in combination’ assessment for all currently licensed abstractions (and many unlicensed abstractions);

• the RoC underpins (and drives) the WRMP, which also explicitly accounts for land-use plans and growth forecasts when calculating future water demand (and hence areas with potential deficits);

• land-use plans and population projections are accounted for in the demand forecasts that underpin the WRMP;

• known major projects that are likely to increase demand are also taken into account during the development of the WRMP.

This means that ‘in combination’ water-resource effects with other known plans or projects are explicitly considered and accounted for during the WRMP development process. It is therefore considered that (for the HRA) potential 'in combination' effects in respect of water-resource demands associated with other plans or projects are generally unlikely since these demands are considered when developing the WRMP and its associated plans.

The main exception to this is other water company WRMPs, which are currently in development and consequently cannot be reliably assessed at this stage. It should also be noted that the detailed examination of non-Welsh Water abstraction or discharge consents for ‘in combination’ effects can only be undertaken by the EA through their permitting procedures.

With regard to other strategic plans, the list of plans included within the SEA will be used as the basis for the ‘in combination’ assessment (see Appendix H). The SEA is used to provide information on the themes, policies and objectives of the ‘in combination’ plans. The plans themselves are examined in more detail as necessary. Plans are obtained from the SEA datasets or internet sources where possible. With regard to projects, the WRMP explicitly accounts for known major projects (e.g. power station decommissioning) during its development, which effectively contributes to the ‘in combination’ assessment of potential interactions with other projects. However, it is not possible to produce a definitive list of existing or anticipated planning applications within the zone of influence of each proposed option to review possible local ‘in combination’ effects, and in reality, the nature of the WRMP and the timescales over which it operates ensure that generating a list at this stage would be of very little value.

5.1.3 Key assumptions, avoidance measures and incorporated mitigation

The same key assumptions, avoidance measures and incorporated mitigation outlined for the feasible options assessment (see Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.4) apply to the preferred options assessment also.

5.2 Preferred options

The preferred options are listed in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Preferred Options

WRZ Option Description Type LSE identified at FO stage?

North Eryri/ Ynys Môn 8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn Network solution No WTW

8001.23 Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir Network solution No

Tywyn Aberdyfi 8021.3 New abstraction from Afon Dysynni at New abstraction Uncertain Pont y Garth (to Pen y Bont WTW)

8021.6 Transfer from new Abergynolwyn Network solution No WTW

Brecon Portis 8108.4 Additional Releases from Usk Put and take / compensation flow Yes Reservoir

8108.7 Penycrug to Portis transfer main Network solution No renewal

Pembrokeshire 8206.11 Transfer Water from Bolton Hill WTW Network solution Uncertain to Preseli WTW

8206.18 Import from Tywi Gower to Network solution Uncertain Pembrokeshire

5.3 North Eryri/ Ynys Môn

5.3.1 Overview

Two preferred options have been proposed for the North Eryri/ Ynys Môn WRZ:

• Option 8001.23 - Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir;

• Option 8001.3 - Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

5.3.2 8001.23 – Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir

Cwm Dulyn WTW currently transfers water into the Criccieth area (in the Lleyn Harlech Water Resource Zone) via Pant Glas. The planned construction of a new superworks at Dolbenmaen (planning permission has been granted subject to conditions) allows the transfer of water into NEYM from Cwm Dulyn WTW to provide more deployable output. This option would utilise existing spare treated water within licence, and would only require a change of valving to allow Cwm Dulyn to supply the Nebo demand area in NEYM resource zone; no other infrastructure would be required. Therefore, there are no reasonable pathways for any effects to occur, and as a result the option will have no significant effects on any European sites.

5.3.3 8001.3 – Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

Option Description

Currently, water is supplied to the Caernarfon area by an abstraction from Llyn Cwellyn. However, Llyn Cwellyn forms part of the Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC, and the abstraction is constrained by the licence. This may result in a potential shortfall of supplies at Cwellyn WTW.

This option would abstract water from an existing intake on the Afon Rhythallt at Crawia weir near Llanrug (which drains Llyn Padarn and Llyn Peris near Llanberis, to the north of Llyn Cwellyn) and transfer the water to Cwellyn WTW, which has been upgraded as part of Welsh Water’s AMP 5 Quality Programme and would enable the increased flows to be managed. This option would require:

• a new raw water main (~9.0 km length, 250mm Ø) from Llanrug to Cwellyn WTW (this is located north west of Betws Garmon, adjacent to the Afon Gwyrfai;

• a new raw pumping station at Llanrug; and

• an upgrade of Cwellyn WTW (note that this has been completed as part of Welsh Water’s AMP 5 Quality Programme, and is not driven by the WRMP).

This proposal would be an inter-basin transfer of untreated water, although there will be no storage or discharge of the raw water (therefore no risk of transfer of species etc.).

The proposed routes for the infrastructure are illustrated on plans available from Welsh Water (see Appendix A). This option is a network solution: it would not require any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from the Afon Rhythallt and would operate within the existing licence parameters. Welsh Water have not received any indications from the EAW that this licence will be subject to sustainability reductions and so it is assumed to be having no significant or adverse effect on any N2K sites (although note that the formal Stage 4 documentation is still awaited).

Screening

The screening and assessment of this option at the feasible options stage identified fourteen sites within 15km. The feasible options assessment has been revisited at the preferred options stage and the European sites ‘screened’ to allow the preferred options assessment to focus on those site where there are uncertainties over the likely effects of the scheme.

Table 5.2 Screening summary for Option 8001.3

Site LSE Rationale

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC Uncertain Construction in close proximity to watercourse

Coedydd Aber SAC No No impact pathways

Coedydd Derw a Safleoedd Ystlumod No It is possible that the pipeline construction could affect habitats used by bats Meirion/ Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat from this site (e.g. hedgerows) although it is unlikely that any habitat affected will Sites SAC provide a significant or unique habitat resource for bats from this SAC.

Corsydd Eifionydd SAC No No impact pathways

Corsydd Môn/ Anglesey Fens SAC No No impact pathways

Eryri/ Snowdonia SAC No No impact pathways

Glannau Môn: Cors heli / Anglesey Coast: No This SAC is located on the far side of the Menai Strait; all potential impacts can Saltmarsh SAC be avoided through best-practice construction measures

Glan-traeth SAC No No impact pathways

Glynllifon SAC Uncertain Bats from this site may be encountered during construction

Y Fenai a Bae Conwy/ Menai Strait and Uncertain Construction works will occur close to the Afon Rhythallt and the Afon Gwyrfai Conwy Bay SAC (which both flow to the SAC).

Y Twyni o Abermenai i Aberffraw/ No No impact pathways Abermenai to Aberffraw Dunes SAC

Traeth Lafan / Lavan Sands, Conway Bay No No impact pathways SPA

Corsydd Môn a Llyn/ Anglesey and Llyn No No impact pathways Fens Ramsar

Llyn Idwal Ramsar No No impact pathways

Assessment of Likely Effects – Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC

Implementation

This option would require construction of a pipeline partly within the catchment of this SAC, and an upgrade of Cwellyn WTW (although this was completed as part of the AMP5 Quality Programme, and is not driven by this scheme or the WRMP). The pipeline will cross tributaries of this SAC (e.g. Nant y Betws), but will (for most of its length) be at least 500m from the SAC itself. However, the final 2.5 km of the pipe (south east of Croesywaun) may be located within ~50 – 200m of the SAC, in the river floodplain. This last 2.5 km would be adjacent to Management Unit 6 of the SAC (“Bryn Gloch caravan park to Waenfawr”). The SAC is designated for Atlantic salmon, Floating Water Plantain, Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters (Llyn Cwellyn), Otter, and Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation. The Management Plan for the SAC indicates that the Management Unit closest to the proposed pipeline (Unit 6) has Atlantic salmon, Otter, and Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation as key species / habitats (also all other downstream units); the next Unit upstream (Unit 5) additionally has Floating water plantain as a key species. The works are considered unlikely to directly or indirectly affect the Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters feature, as this is Llyn Cwellyn itself (~2.5 km upstream of the closest area of working). It is also thought that significant effects on Floating Water Plantain are unlikely as this species appears to be primarily associated with the lake and the reaches of river that are upstream of Cwellyn WTW. However, it is possible that the other features (Atlantic salmon, Otter, and Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation) could be affected if construction work is not appropriately controlled, managed or mitigated. Impacts could occur through: • Sediment release / construction discharges affecting habitat features or species within the SAC itself (Atlantic salmon, Otter, and Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation) • Construction disturbance directly affecting SAC species; e.g. noise / vibration (Atlantic salmon, Otter). It is considered that all potential construction impacts could be managed through normal construction best practice, although construction may need to be timed to minimise potential impacts on migrating Atlantic salmon. Similarly, construction works will require surveys to ensure that otter holts etc. are not being affected. However, construction near watercourses is common and there is no reason to assume that the proposed works could not be undertaken and accommodated without LSE on the SAC.

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: All potential impacts can be avoided through best-practice construction measures. The works should ideally be timed to avoid impacts on migrating salmon (works within 200m of the river completed before the autumn migration), unless otherwise agreed with CCW, and it is suggested that words to this effect are included within the option text or an appendix to the document.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: Likely significant effects uncertain – significant effects are conceivable but could probably be avoided with appropriate planning and scheme specific mitigation.

Preferred Options Assessment: The scheme will have no significant adverse effects assuming that the avoidance and standard mitigation measures identified are employed; any potential adverse effects can almost certainly be avoided with the recommended avoidance / mitigation measures, and appropriate planning and scheme-specific mitigation at the project stage which must be agreed with CCW.

Operation

This option would not require any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from the Afon Gwyrfai and therefore operational effects on the interest features of this SAC would not be anticipated. It should be noted that this will be an inter-basin transfer of untreated water (which will have implications for EIA at the project level), but this should not affect this SAC since there will be no discharges of raw water (therefore no risk of species transfer etc.).

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Y Fenai a Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC

Implementation

The Menai Strait is approximately 9km downstream of the existing intake location at Llanrug. It is uncertain whether works will be required to this intake, but construction works will occur close to the Afon Rhythallt and the Afon Gwyrfai (which both flow to the SAC). There is therefore a potential pathway for construction-derived pollutants (silts, oils etc.) to reach this site, if not properly managed. The features of this site are all habitats (Large shallow inlets and bays; Mudflats and sandflats not covered at low tide; Reefs; Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time; and Submerged or partially submerged sea caves) that are unlikely to be especially vulnerable to the likely effects of the scheme, and any potential effects (e.g. silt release etc) can be managed and controlled with best- practice construction measures. It is therefore considered unlikely that the scheme will affect the interest features of the site as a result of construction.

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: All potential impacts can be avoided through best-practice construction measures. This can be dealt with using a general statement of good- practice within the WRMP, or in the specific notes for each option.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Operation

The scheme will operate within the terms of the existing licensed abstraction on the Afon Rhythallt (3.4Ml/d) which is currently not used (water was previously abstracted from here to supply Crug WTW, which is mothballed). As a result, no ‘new water’ will be abstracted. The interest features of the Menai are all considered to be potentially vulnerable to abstraction, with the exception of Submerged or partially submerged sea caves, and in theory the abstraction may affect the features that are present within the Menai near the Afon Siont estuary (Mudflats and sandflats; Reefs; Sandbanks). However, any effects will be local and negligible, given the small volume of the abstraction and the high tidal flux within the Menai. Furthermore, Welsh Water have not received any indications from the EAW that this licence will be subject to sustainability reductions and so it is assumed to be having no significant or adverse effect on any N2K sites (although note that the formal Stage 4 documentation is still awaited).

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Glynllifon SAC

Implementation

This SAC is designated for its population of Lesser horseshoe bats. The SAC has three main components, the largest of which is located ~6km from the likely pipeline route; the closest management unit with a maternity roost is ~7km away. However, there is a known hibernation roost in Management Unit 37 (Simdde – Dylluan Copper Mine), in old mine workings in the Nantlle Valley; this is located ~4km from Cwellyn WTW. Lesser horseshoe bats typically forage within ~4km of their roosts (but may go further afield), but will often travel greater distances as they move between winter and summer roosts. It is possible that the pipeline construction could affect habitats used by bats from this site (e.g. hedgerows) although it is unlikely that any habitat affected will provide a significant or unique habitat resource for bats from this SAC. Given the distance from the SAC, it is also unlikely that works will sever any well-used commuting routes (and any effects would be temporary only). The pipeline is also not located between the known maternity and hibernation roosts. As a result, it is considered very unlikely that the scheme will significantly affect bats using this SAC and there is no indication that construction of this scheme could not be accommodated without significant effects on this SAC.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Operation

There will be no effect on bats associated with this SAC due to the site operation; the abstraction point is located at least 10km from the SAC and it will not affect potential foraging opportunities (etc).

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

5.4 Tywyn Aberdyfi

5.4.1 Overview

Two preferred options have been proposed for the Tywyn Aberdyfi WRZ:

• Option 8021.3 - New abstraction from Afon Dysynni at Pont y Garth (to Pen y Bont WTW); and

• Option 8021.6 - Transfer from new Abergynolwyn WTW.

5.4.2 8021.3 New abstraction from Afon Dysynni at Pont y Garth (to Pen y Bont WTW)

Option Description

Pen y Bont WTW does not currently abstract water from the Afon Dysynni. This option would:

• develop a new abstraction point on the Afon Dysynni, in the Pont y Garth area;

• construct new raw water mains to transfer directly to Pen y Bont WTW.

The new abstraction would take 0.6 Ml/d (average) and have a maximum impact of 0.5% on medium flows in the Afon Dysynni, with an approximate 0.2% impact on low flows (as less would be abstracted during these periods).

Screening

The screening and assessment of this option at the feasible options stage identified nine sites within 15km. The feasible options assessment has been revisited at the preferred options stage and the European sites ‘screened’ to allow the preferred options assessment to focus on those site where there are uncertainties over the likely effects of the scheme.

Table 5.3 Screening summary for Option 8021.3

Site LSE Rationale

Afon Eden – Cors Goch Trawsfynydd SAC No Separate catchment; site / interest feature not connected by reasonable impact pathway

Cadair Idris SAC No No impact pathways

Coed Cwm Einion SAC No No impact pathways

Coedydd Derw a Safleoedd Ystlumod No No impact pathways Meirion/ Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat Sites SAC

Cors Fochno SAC No No impact pathways

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and Uncertain Unlikely to be affected by construction (assuming normal measures); the the Sarnau SAC increased abstraction would reduce flows into the SAC from the Afon Dysynni at certain times.

Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) SPA Uncertain The interest feature of Bird’s Rock SPA (chough) are not sensitive to water resource permissions; it s possible that there may be some disturbance effects as a result of construction.

Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi SPA No No impact pathways

Cors Fochno and Dyfi Ramsar No No impact pathways

Assessment of Likely Effects

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC

Implementation

There is a risk of construction impacts on the SAC if construction work is not appropriately controlled, managed or mitigated. Impacts could occur through: • Sediment release / discharges affecting habitat features or species within the SAC itself; • Construction disturbance directly affecting SAC species that may use the Afon Dysynni. The Afon Dysynni is not designated as SAC or SSSI, although the interest features of the SAC (notably otter and potentially the anadramous fish species) may make use of the river and the estuary. However, any effects on these species can be avoided with appropriate survey evidence, or mitigated; there will also be scope for enhancement alongside any development. The works will not affect the integrity of the SAC interest feature populations. With regard to sediment release etc. from construction works affecting the SAC habitats downstream of the works area, it is considered that this can be easily avoided with appropriate working practices (e.g. use of silt curtains, which have been shown to be very successful if appropriately deployed).

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: All potential impacts can be avoided through best-practice construction measures.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC

Operation

The new abstraction would take 0.6 Ml/d (maximum) and have a maximum impact of 0.5% on medium flows in the Afon Dysynni. There would be an approximate 0.2% impact on low flows. CCW have indicated in their Regulation 33 Advice for Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC that some of the interest features are potentially vulnerable to abstraction effects, notably Atlantic Salt Meadows; Estuaries; Large shallow inlets and bays; Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Otter Lutra lutra; Reefs; and Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand. With regard to the Afon Dysynni, the lower reaches comprise the Broadwater SSSI. This SSSI is dominated by a tidal lagoon that has formed behind a shingle spit across the mouth of the Afon Dysynni; there is an outlet channel though this spit. Most of the SSSI, including the intertidal habitats and saltmarsh of the lagoon, is outside the SAC; the SAC covers only the seaward side of existing sea defences (a narrow exposed intertidal area <200m wide) and the shingle spit at this location. As a result, the estuarine and intertidal features associated with the Afon Dysynni (i.e. the Broadwater SSSI lagoon) do not form part of the SAC. The abstraction-vulnerable habitats of the SAC (Atlantic Salt Meadows; Estuaries; Large shallow inlets and bays; Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Reefs; and Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand) are therefore likely to have a relatively limited exposure to freshwater inputs in this location, particularly in relation to the tidal flux. CCW data indicates that the main features present at the mouth of the Afon Dysynni are subtidal and intertidal reefs, and coastal lagoons. The coastal lagoon is the Morfa Gwyllt lagoon on the south side of the mouth of the River Dysynni, which is a saline lagoon (the only one on the Cardigan Coast) that is supplied primarily by seawater percolation and rainfall (i.e. it is largely isolated from freshwater inflows); freshwater flows from the Dysynni are not critical to the integrity of this feature, and increased freshwater input would probably adversely affect the feature; therefore, the effects of the scheme on this feature will be not significant (limited exposure; limited sensitivity to reduced freshwater input). With regard to the subtidal and intertidal reefs, these are located along the shoreline north of the Dysynni estuary, and in the off-shore area. Freshwater input is likely to have subtle influence on the subtidal reefs, although this will be limited due to the dominance of tidal processes in this offshore area. Furthermore, the impacts on flows as a result of the abstraction will be negligible (0.2% at low flows). Otters are likely to use the Afon Dysynni, although the river is not designated (either SSSI or SAC) in this respect and again the effect of flow reduction will be negligible for this species or its habitats. Taken together, it is considered that the abstraction is very unlikely to have a significant effect or adverse effect on the interest features of the SAC, and there is no reason to assume that the proposed abstraction cannot be accommodated without LSE on the SAC.

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects; it is considered that the abstraction is very unlikely to have a significant effect or adverse effect on the interest features of the SAC, and there is no reason to assume that the proposed abstraction cannot be accommodated based on the available data.

Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) SPA

Implementation

The currently proposed pipeline route runs within existing roads near the site. Although choughs are likely to be habituated to some disturbance (due to the roads and rock climbing) it is possible that construction works may cause additional noise or visual disturbance, particularly if they are foraging in fields adjacent to works. This may require additional assessment once the precise parameters of the project are clear, but the most significant potential impacts could be easily mitigated by timing works to avoid the breeding season. There are no over-riding reasons why these works could not be accommodated without LSE.

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: All potential impacts can be avoided through best-practice construction measures; construction should avoid the breeding season.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects alone; any potential significant effects can almost certainly be avoided through normal best-practice construction measures and avoidance of works near to the SPA during the breeding season.

Operation

The interest feature of Bird’s Rock SPA (chough) is not sensitive to water resource permissions and will not be affected by the operation of this Option. Disturbance as a result of PS operation will not occur.

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects alone

5.4.3 8021.6 Transfer from new Abergynolwyn WTW

Option Description

This option would transfer water from a new WTW at Abergynolwyn in South Meirionydd WRZ to supplement supply from Pen y Bont WTW in Tywyn Aberdyfi. It would require a new WTW at Abergynolwyn and a new treated water main from Abergynolwyn to Pen y Bont WTW. The option would not require any additional water.

Screening

The screening and assessment of this option at the feasible options stage identified nine sites within 15km (the same sites as for Option 8021.3). The feasible options assessment has been revisited at the preferred options stage and the European sites ‘screened’ to allow the preferred options assessment to focus on those site where there are uncertainties over the likely effects of the scheme.

Table 5.4 Screening summary for Option 8021.6

Site LSE Rationale

Afon Eden – Cors Goch Trawsfynydd SAC No Separate catchment; site / interest feature not connected by reasonable impact pathway

Cadair Idris SAC No No impact pathways

Coed Cwm Einion SAC No No impact pathways

Coedydd Derw a Safleoedd Ystlumod No No impact pathways Meirion/ Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat Sites SAC

Cors Fochno SAC No No impact pathways

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and Uncertain Unlikely to be affected by construction (assuming normal measures) although the Sarnau SAC the site is a downstream receptor; there would be no change in abstraction and therefore no operational effects.

Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi SPA No No impact pathways

Cors Fochno and Dyfi Ramsar No No impact pathways

Assessment of Likely Effects

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC

Implementation

Construction works would take place near to the Afon Fathew, which drains to the Afon Dysynni and hence to this SAC. This site is a downstream receptor and there is a risk of construction impacts on the SAC if construction work is not appropriately controlled, managed or mitigated. Impacts could occur through: • Sediment release / discharges affecting habitat features or species within the SAC itself; • Construction disturbance directly affecting SAC species that may use the Afon Dysynni. The Afon Fathew and Afon Dysynni are not designated as SACs or SSSIs, although the interest features of the SAC (notably otter and potentially the anadramous fish species) may make use of the river or the estuary. However, any effects on this species can be avoided with appropriate survey evidence, or mitigated. The works will not affect the integrity of the SAC interest feature populations. With regard to sediment release etc. from construction works affecting the SAC habitats downstream of the works area, it is considered that this can be easily avoided with appropriate working practices (e.g. use of silt curtains, which have been shown to be very successful if appropriately deployed).

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: All potential impacts can be avoided through best-practice construction measures.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: Uncertain

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects alone – any potential effects can be avoided or mitigated using normal best-practice

Operation

There would be no change to the current abstraction regime and so no operational impacts would be expected.

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects.

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects alone.

Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) SPA

Implementation

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: All potential impacts can be avoided through best-practice construction measures; construction should avoid the breeding season.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Operation

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects alone

5.5 Brecon Portis

Two options have been identified for Brecon Portis. These are:

• Option 8108.4 - Additional Releases from Usk Reservoir;

• Option 8108.7 – Penycrug to Portis transfer main renewal.

5.5.1 Option 8108.4 - Additional Releases from Usk Reservoir

Option Description

To supply the Brecon area of the Brecon-Portis WRZ Welsh Water abstracts directly from the River Usk at Brecon and from boreholes adjacent to the River Usk, to an aggregated volume of 5.77 Ml/d and 2110 Ml/yr. Under the RoC process, these two aggregated abstractions are to be cut-back substantially. This option would allow additional releases from Usk Reservoir, which is upstream of Brecon, to replace the water lost through the RoC process, thereby avoiding derogation of the environmental river flow objectives. As a result the only impact on the Usk will be for the first 10 km downstream of the reservoir. EAW have indicated that use of Usk reservoir to regulate/augment flows in the River Usk is an acceptable solution.

The proposed alterations will not affect spill frequency (and hence 'natural' flow variability) since the Usk reservoir is full most of the time and the release volumes are insignificant in relation to the reservoir storage.

No significant capital works would be required; the only works would be new valving arrangements and metering at Usk Reservoir to allow for fine tuning of the reservoir releases.

Screening

The screening and assessment of this option at the feasible options stage identified five sites within 15km. The feasible options assessment has been revisited at the preferred options stage and the following sites are ‘screened out’ of any additional assessment in relation to this option (alone and in combination):

Table 5.5 Screening summary for Option 8108.04

Site LSE Rationale

Afon Tywi/ River Tywi No Entirely separate catchment; no impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of SAC option

Brecon Beacons/ No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option Bannau Brycheiniog SAC

Mynydd Epynt SAC No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option

River Usk/ Afon Wysg Yes The option will have no implementation phase effects (minor works only required); operational SAC Twaite shad effects will affect the Usk significantly (by design) but adverse effects are not certain.

River Wye/ Afon Gwy No Entirely separate catchment; no impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of SAC option

Severn Estuary SAC No The scheme will not result in any significant changes in the volumes of freshwater reaching the estuary, and it is therefore very unlikely that the option will result in measurable or significant effects on this site.

Severn Estuary SPA No The scheme will not result in any significant changes in the volumes of freshwater reaching the estuary, and it is therefore very unlikely that the option will result in measurable or significant effects on these designated sites.

Severn Estuary Ramsar No As for the Severn Estuary SPA

Assessment of Likely Effects

The potential effects of this option are summarised in the following tables, grouped by European site.

River Usk/Afon Wysg SAC

Implementation No significant capital work will be required; all works will be valve modifications / telemetry within the Usk Reservoir works. Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: None.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Operation Several of the interest features of this site are potentially sensitive to water-resource permissions, including Allis shad; Atlantic salmon; Brook lamprey; Bullhead; Otter; River Lamprey; Sea lamprey; Twaite shad; and Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation. The key species in the Management Unit closest to the Usk Reservoir (Unit 6) are Atlantic salmon and Otter. Salmon are known to spawn in Unit 6. The release of water from the Usk Reservoir should be largely positive for upper reaches of the river and has been proposed through the RoC process as a solution for improving the condition of the river. The releases would operate on a ‘put and take’ basis, with releases used to augment flows during low flow periods. The scheme will be subject to further assessment at the project stage, when the licence is modified. This will include HRA. The proposed alterations will not affect the reservoir ‘spill frequency’ (and hence ‘natural’ flow variability) since the Usk reservoir is full most of the time and the release volumes are insignificant in relation to the reservoir storage. Therefore there is essentially no impact to storage as a result of the releases and consequently no impact to spills and natural flows in the downstream river. With regard to possible effects, most interest features are unlikely to be affected by the scheme; however, there is a theoretical risk to spawning Atlantic Salmon, depending on the precise operational parameters of the release scheme, and it is possible that bullhead, brook and river lamprey and Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation may also be locally affected. Salmon spawning areas have been recorded within the Management Unit that is directly beneath the reservoir. It is possible that increases in the duration, size or frequency of compensatory releases could affect either the habitats of the spawning salmon (e.g. spawning gravels being washed out) or the behaviour of the adults / alevins / fry / parr etc. at points in their lifecycle. It is theoretically possible that additional releases, if large and undertaken in spring or early summer, could force alevins or fry away from the spawning areas too early (although at the other end of the salmon lifecycle, releases in the summer will probably be beneficial to adult salmon returning to spawn in the early autumn). Released water may also have a different temperature profile. Salmon redds (and hence alevins) are understood to be vulnerable to spate conditions over the winter incubation period. However, the releases will not be substantial (max. 2.5 ML/d) and the SAC site management plan does not suggest that the current release regime (between ~5 and 9 Ml/d, with very occasional full discharges of up to 150Ml/d) is having any effect on the habitats supporting spawning salmon in Unit 6; indeed, the management plan indicates that low flows are one of the more significant factors affecting salmon and any operation that prevents low flow situations in the spawning areas would be a positive benefit; similarly, additional releases may act as surrogate ‘flushing flows’, reducing the effects of siltation. With regard to temperature, the releases equate to approximately 1% of the lowest flows at Trostrey FGS and roughly 20% increase in compensation flows from a reservoir only 25m deep, so significant changes in temperature profile are unlikely to occur. The key limiting factors on populations of fry and parr are food and space (Hendry & Cragg-Hine 2003), which are likely to increase in the upper reaches if compensation releases are increased (even on put and take basis). Currently, the compensation release requirement on Usk Reservoir is 9.1 Ml/d (excess storage zone) or 5.7 Ml/d (conditional storage zone); however, the full river regulation release (i.e. the release when the River Usk falls beneath certain levels) is in the order of 150Ml/d. The revised licence would probably (based on modelling scenarios) increase the daily release by up to 2.5 Ml/d for between ~176 and 184 days per year (mostly between April and October). The CCW management plan for the site notes that “for reaches below reservoirs, the effect of abstraction from storage is excluded from the [flow] assessment, so that the target flow is a ‘benchmark’ flow, incorporating the reservoir compensation release, rather than a naturalised flow. At times of low flow, compensation releases may increase the flow downstream of the reservoir above natural levels. There may also be effects resulting from reduced water temperature.” There is therefore an acceptance within this that the releases may have an effect on the immediate downstream reaches, but that these are acceptable (i.e. not adverse). Although the likely effects of a change in release regime cannot be fully explored at this level (it may require some field surveys to establish locations of spawning areas, for example), it is considered unlikely that the additional releases would have a significant adverse effect on the spawning areas, or spawning or developing salmon. The additional releases are unlikely to be over the winter period and ‘spate’ conditions (which could wash out redds or alevins) can obviously be avoided at key points by management of the releases. Whilst some geomorphological adjustment may be expected if the releases are increased, it is considered that the effects of this are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the site integrity, particularly as the upper reaches are already influenced by the releases, some of which can be substantial (up to 150Ml/d under certain conditions). Furthermore, the releases are likely to increase the availability of habitat in the upper reaches.

River Usk/Afon Wysg SAC (continued)

Recommended Avoidance/Mitigation: Appropriate avoidance or mitigation measures (e.g. operating parameters for the releases) cannot be fully determined at this level. It will be necessary to state this within the WRMP, along with a caveat regarding possible alternatives if this solution is not achievable.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: Significant effects likely – the alteration of the release regime will have LSE on this site.

Preferred Options Assessment: No adverse effects; based on the available data on flows and operation the scheme will have no adverse effects on the SAC. Furthermore, the scheme has been promoted through the RoC process to provide positive benefits for the Usk and therefore it is reasonable to assume that adverse effects will not occur since the proposals are designed to mitigate the current adverse effects on the river. The scheme will be subject to further HRA as part of the licence amendment process and an appropriate monitoring regime can be specified at this point.

5.5.2 Option 8108.7 – Penycrug to Portis transfer main renewal

Option Description

The Aberbran supply area is currently fed by a main from Portis WTW. The option is to supply Aberbran from Brecon WTW instead. This will free up 0.9 Ml/d at Portis WTW to deal with future demand increases. An upgrade of 1km of main leading from Pen y Crug will be required. The works will be within 1km of the River Usk SAC but will be minor and it is expected that all potential construction effects could be managed / avoided with normal best- practice. There will be no operational effects.

Screening

Table 5.6 Screening summary for Option 8108.04

Site LSE Rationale

Brecon Beacons/ No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option Bannau Brycheiniog

Drostre Bank No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option

Llangorse Lake/ Llyn No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option Syfaddan

Mynydd Epynt No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option

River Usk/ Afon Wysg No The works will require the upgrade of approximately 1km of an existing pipe within approximately 1km of the River Usk SAC. However, these are minor works and it is expected that any potential construction effects could be managed / avoided with normal best-practice.

River Wye/ Afon Gwy No Entirely separate catchment; no impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option

Usk Bat Sites/ No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option Safleoedd Ystlumod Wysg

5.6 Pembrokeshire

5.6.1 Overview

In order to address the shortfall in the Pembrokeshire WRZ two Feasible Options have been modelled conjunctively. These are:

• Option 8206.11 - Transfer Water from Bolton Hill WTW to Preseli WTW

• Option 8206.18 – Import from Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire

These Options are therefore the preferred option set, as they are co-dependent to some extent, and this maximises the benefits delivered by each scheme. However, the schemes are not geographically connected and so each scheme is assessed separately (below) for its effects on European sites.

5.6.2 Option 8206.11 – Transfer Water from Bolton Hill WTW to Preseli WTW

Option Description

Bolton Hill WTW, near Haverfordwest, currently receives water from the abstraction on the Eastern Cleddau at Canaston Bridge and the Western Cleddau through the Crowhill pumping station. Rosebush (Preseli) WTW is primarily supplied from Preseli Reservoir which is supported by an abstraction on the Eastern Cleddau at Pont Hywel, although up to 5 Ml/d can be abstracted from Llys-y-Fran reservoir and transferred direct to Preseli WTW. This option would:

• upsize and re-commission approximately 10 km of mains in and around the Haverfordwest area; and

• install a new WPS to allow the water to be moved from the south west of the WRZ to the north east of the WRZ.

This option would improve the current network system to allow water to be transferred ‘up catchment’ from Bolton Hill WTW to supplement the supply from Preseli WTW.

This option is a network solution: it would not require any increase in abstraction volumes from the Afon Cleddau (note that licence modifications are required for the Afon Cleddau under the RoC, and this option meets these requirements).

Screening

The screening and assessment of this option at the feasible options stage identified seven sites within 15km. The feasible options assessment has been revisited at the preferred options stage and the European sites ‘screened’ to allow the preferred options assessment to focus on those site where there are uncertainties over the likely effects of the scheme.

Table 5.7 Screening summary for Option 8206.11

Site LSE Rationale

Afonydd Cleddau/ Cleddau Rivers SAC Uncertain

Limestone Coast of South West Wales/ No No impact pathways Arfordir Calchfaen de Orllewin Cymru SAC

North Pembrokeshire Woodlands/ No No impact pathways (works in road so unlikely to affect bat migration routes) Coedydd Gogledd Sir Benfro SAC

Pembrokeshire Bat Sites and Bosherston No No impact pathways (works in road so unlikely to affect bat migration routes) Lakes/ Safleoedd Ystlum Sir Benfro a Llynnoedd Bosherston SAC

Pembrokeshire Marine/ Sir Benfro Forol Uncertain SAC

Preseli SAC No No impact pathways

St David`s / Ty Ddewi SAC No No impact pathways

Yerbeston Tops SAC No No impact pathways

Assessment of Likely Effects – Transfer Water from Bolton Hill WTW to Preseli WTW

Afonydd Cleddau/Cleddau Rivers SAC

Implementation

The transfer main would have to cross both branches of the western Cleddau Rivers SAC, although the proposed route is sited within existing roads through Haverfordwest; however, there is a potential for construction impacts on the SAC if construction work is not appropriately controlled or mitigated. All of the appropriate mitigation (other than normal good working practices) cannot be determined at this level however there is no reason to assume that the proposed works could not be undertaken and accommodated without adverse effects on the SAC since the proposed works are not particularly substantial. If the works avoid the key migration periods for river and sea lamprey then adverse effects would not be expected.

Recommended Avoidance/Mitigation: Construction works should avoid the key migration periods for river lamprey and sea lamprey; specific mitigation plans will be used to avoid incidental effects on the SAC or its interest features during construction

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: Uncertain – significant effects are conceivable but can be avoided with appropriate planning and scheme specific mitigation.

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant adverse effects; significant effects are avoidable with the standard best-practice measures summarised in Appendix J and the avoidance of working near the river during the key migration periods for the lamprey species.

Operation

This option would not require any increase in abstraction from the Afon Cleddau, and would operate within the revised licence parameters proposed by the RoC process. The current abstraction regime on the Afon Cleddau has been identified by CCW as a factor potentially contributing to the unfavourable condition of the aquatic interest features (in combination with other factors, notably diffuse pollution) and therefore implementation of this option should reduce these impacts (as it is in line accordance with the modifications required under the RoC). As the option therefore is a network solution that results in less water being abstracted from the Cleddau, in accordance with the RoC outcomes, it is considered that the option will not have an adverse effect on the SAC.

Recommended Avoidance/Mitigation: None.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Pembrokeshire Marine/Sir Benfro Forol SAC

Implementation

The transfer main would have to cross both branches of the Cleddau Rivers SAC; at this stage the proposed route is sited within existing roads; however, there is a potential for construction impacts on the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC if construction work is not appropriately controlled or mitigated. Appropriate mitigation cannot be determined at this level however there is no reason to assume that the proposed works could not be undertaken and accommodated without LSE on the SAC. Effects on the mobile species of this site can be avoided using the same measures outlined for the Cleddau Rivers SAC.

Recommended Avoidance/Mitigation: All potential impacts can be avoided through best-practice construction measures. This can be dealt with using a general statement of good- practice within the WRMP, or in the specific notes for this option.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Operation

Abstraction is not currently identified as having a significant adverse effect on this site by CCW; however, Pembrokeshire Marine SAC is downstream of the Cleddau Rivers SAC and some features (notably River Lamprey, Allis Shad and Twaite Shad) are potentially vulnerable to abstractions affecting the Cleddau Rivers SAC. This option would not require any increase in abstraction from the Afon Cleddau, and would operate within the revised licence parameters proposed by the RoC process. The current abstraction regime on the Afon Cleddau has been identified by CCW as a factor potentially contributing to the unfavourable condition of the aquatic interest features (in combination with other factors, notably diffuse pollution) and therefore implementation of this option should reduce these impacts (as it is in line accordance with the modifications required under the RoC). As the option therefore is a network solution that results in less water being abstracted from the Cleddau it is considered that the option will not have a significant effect on the Pembrokeshire Marine SAC.

Recommended Avoidance/Mitigation: None.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No likely significant effects

5.6.3 Option 8206.18 - Import from Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire

Option Description

The option involves using spare resource from Felindre WTW in Tywi Gower WRZ to supply the Capel Dewi supply area. Capel Dewi resource will then be used to supply the Pendine area. The option requires a new pipeline between Foel Ebenezer service reservoir in Tywi zone and Brandy Hill and Pendine SRVs in Pembrokeshire. It is assumed that the pipelines will be located within existing roadways. The transfer main may cross the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC (on the Afon Taf near St. Clears) and other tributaries of this SAC. This option would not require any increase in abstraction.

Screening

The screening and assessment of this option at the feasible options stage identified six sites within 15km. The feasible options assessment has been revisited at the preferred options stage and the following sites are ‘screened out’ of any additional assessment in relation to this option (alone and in combination):

Table 5.8 Screening summary for Option 8206.1

Site LSE Rationale

Afon Tywi/ River Tywi Uncertain Possible weak construction effects on mobile species in estuary SAC

Afonydd Cleddau/ No Site in separate catchment; no impact pathways Cleddau Rivers SAC

Carmarthen Bay and Uncertain The transfer main would have to cross the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC (on the Afon Taf Estuaries/ Bae near St. Clears) and other tributaries of this SAC Caerfyrddin ac Aberoedd SAC

Carmarthen Bay Dunes/ No Site located over 6km from construction area, no reasonable impact pathways Twyni Bae Caerfyrddin SAC

Pembrokeshire Bat Sites No Closest unit 15km from likely construction area, no effects likely. and Bosherston Lakes/ Safleoedd Ystlum Sir Benfro a Llynnoedd Bosherston SAC

Bae Caerfyrddin/ No No impact pathways; interest features not exposed to likely effects of option Carmarthen Bay SPA

Assessment

The potential effects of this option are summarised in the following tables, grouped by European site.

Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries/ Bae Caerfyrddin ac Aberoedd SAC

Implementation

The transfer main would have to cross the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC (on the Afon Taf near St. Clears) and other tributaries of this SAC. There is therefore a potential pathway for construction-derived pollutants (silts, oils etc.) to reach this site, if not properly managed. In addition, the construction could affect mobile species of the SAC, particularly Allis shad, Twaite shad, sea lamprey and river lamprey during their residence within the estuary through noise or vibration disturbance (as well as run-off etc). . At this stage the pipeline has been routed along existing roads and it has been assumed that this will be achievable; however, it is possible that some sections may need to run adjacent to the road or along separate (cross country) routes, depending on several factors that cannot be determined at this stage – for example, the location of other services within the road. It has also been assumed that all river crossings will be by existing road or pipe- bridges, or through directional drilling (or similar), and that no invasive excavations etc. will be required in or adjacent to the rivers (e.g. cut and fill across the watercourses).

River lamprey / Sea lamprey / Twaite shad / Allis shad

This SAC, particularly the estuarine areas, supports these species during their marine phase, with the estuaries providing important nursery and feeding areas. These species will be primarily vulnerable to deterioration in water quality associated with construction (particularly run- off and other incidental pollution) and (to a lesser extent) noise / vibration disturbance if invasive works are required close to the river / estuary (for example, construction of pipe-bridges). Effects could theoretically occur anywhere along the pipeline route as a result of construction run-off, but the crossing of the lower reaches of the Afon Taf at St. Clears is likely to be particularly vulnerable. Construction will be in close proximity to the SAC at other points (although it is currently proposed that the works will be sited within existing roads). It is expected that normal construction best-practice could be relied on to minimise any effects and ensure that they are not likely to significantly affect this interest feature. However, it may be necessary to schedule works that are near the river (within, for example, 200m) outside the main migration (spring, autumn) and spawning periods (April – May for brook and river lamprey; May – July for sea lamprey). It should be noted that any effects will be short-term only, associated with the construction period, and any acute pollution event is likely to be quickly attenuated if it is not prevented or immediately controlled. There is no obvious reason to assume that this option could not be accommodated without adverse effects on the SAC.

Otter

Otters use all parts of the SAC and its tributaries and so there are likely to be numerous opportunities for them to be exposed to the implementation effects of the scheme. They are most likely to be affected directly through disturbance (e.g. individuals disturbed or displaced by construction; impacts on holts; risk of death due to construction activities and traffic) but could also be affected indirectly through impacts on their fish prey. The risk of construction effects on otters can only be accurately quantified following field surveys at the project level, although it is reasonable to assume that standard mitigation measures (e.g. ensuring trenches have a means of escape; using pipe-end caps) would be effective at minimising the risk of impacts on individual otters away from the SAC. Construction near the SAC, particularly at river crossings, could disturb otters in holts, although this can be avoided with best-practice or mitigated through construction of replacement holts, although construction within roads is likely to be the least disturbing approach for this species. It is therefore possible that individual otters may be temporarily affected by construction (although this will require appropriate survey) but these effects can be reliably avoided or mitigated using established measures and the scheme is therefore unlikely to have any significant direct effects on the interest feature as a whole. It is possible that indirect effects may occur through impacts on their fish prey, although the avoidance and mitigation measures set out for fish (above) will be sufficient to ensure that this does not occur. Any construction effects are will also be temporary only.

Sandbanks / Large shallow inlets and bays / Salicornia and other annuals / Estuaries / Mudflats and sandflats / Atlantic Salt Meadows

These features are all potentially exposed to the effects of the scheme, primarily possible incidental pollution effects, although their sensitivity to most potential indirect construction impacts will be relatively low and normal best practice will be sufficient to ensure that the construction of the scheme has no adverse effects. Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: A scheme specific mitigation plan will be required but a commitment to remain within the road unless later scheme-specific studies demonstrate that a non-road route is acceptable will ensure that significant effects do not occur. The mitigation plan will include location specific sediment control measures designed to prevent any acute pollution or sedimentation events as a result of construction run-off, and must be agreed with CCW.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: Uncertain

Preferred Options Assessment: No significant adverse effects, assuming route remains within roads and mitigation measures are employed. Routing outside the existing carriageway may increase the risk of significant effects (particularly near the estuary) but there is a high degree of certainty that these effects can be avoided or mitigated using normal measures and approaches.

Operation

The scheme is a network solution using spare water from an alternative source; there will be no significant operational effects.

Recommended Avoidance/Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No significant effects

Afon Tywi/ River Tywi SAC

Implementation

The transfer main would be sited over 5km from this SAC, within a separate catchment. However, some of the interest features of this SAC are also features of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC, notably river lamprey, sea lamprey, twaite shad, allis shad and otter. It is therefore possible that the interest features of the Afon Tywi/ River Tywi SAC could be affected when utilising the habitats of the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC (through incidental pollution, disturbance, etc.). However, the measures that will be employed to prevent any significant effects on the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC will also be successful in protecting the interest features of this SAC when resident in the estuary, and therefore no significant effects would be anticipated assuming normal best-practice.

Recommended Avoidance / Mitigation: A scheme specific mitigation plan will be required but a commitment to remain within the road unless later scheme-specific studies demonstrate that a non-road route is acceptable will ensure that significant effects do not occur. The mitigation plan will include location specific sediment control measures designed to prevent any acute pollution or sedimentation events as a result of construction run-off, and must be agreed with CCW.

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: Uncertain

Operation

The scheme is a network solution using spare water from an alternative source; there will be no significant operational effects.

Recommended Avoidance/Mitigation: None

Summary of Feasible Options Assessment: No significant effects

Preferred Options Assessment: No significant effects

5.7 In-combination Effects

5.7.1 ‘In Combination’ Effects between Preferred Options

Table 5.9 illustrates the European sites that could potentially be affected by the Preferred Options, and indicates those that may be vulnerable to in combination effects if all Preferred Options are implemented:

Table 5.9 Summary of Possible Inter-Option ‘In Combination’ Effects (NEYM = North Eryri / Ynys Môn; TA = Tywyn Aberdyfi; BP = Brecon Portis; Pembs. = Pembrokeshire)

European site LSE or AE from Preferred Option (alone)? I/C Comment

NEYM TA BP Pembs.

8001.3 8001.3 8021.3 8021.6 8108.4 8108.7 8001.23 8001.23 8206.11 8206.18

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn N N Only potentially affected by one option, therefore no ‘inter-option’ in SAC combination effects

Afonydd Cleddau/ Cleddau N N N The options will not combine operationally. Construction effects would not Rivers SAC combine due to the geographical separation of the schemes. Any pollution events or similar would have to be co-incident and of a substantial magnitude to have any risk of direct in combination effects, and there will be no risk if construction is completed at separate times (most likely).

Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s N N Potentially vulnerable if both schemes are constructed in the same period Rock) SPA (unlikely) and no mitigation (avoiding works during the breeding season) is implemented. However, the same mitigation will be employed for both schemes and can be expected to be successful, and no in combination effects will occur.

Glynllifon SAC N N Only potentially affected by one option, therefore no ‘inter-option’ in combination effects

European site LSE or AE from Preferred Option (alone)? I/C Comment

NEYM TA BP Pembs.

8001.3 8001.3 8021.3 8021.6 8108.4 8108.7 8001.23 8001.23 8206.11 8206.18

Pembrokeshire Bat Sites N N N One of the interest features of this site that may be affected (greater and Bosherston Lakes/ horseshoe bats) are (in part) functionally linked to the Limestone Coast of Safleoedd Ystlum Sir Benfro South West Wales SAC, and therefore the potential for in combination effects a Llynnoedd Bosherston on this feature is considered for both these sites. SAC The two Pembrokeshire WRZ schemes are within 15km of at least one component SSSI of this SAC, although Option 8206.11 (Bolton Hill – Preseli Pipeline), is 7km from the nearest components of this SAC and Option 8206.18 nearly 15km. As a result, the effects of these schemes (alone) are very likely to be weak or inconsequential, and easily avoidable with normal construction good practice. In combination, the schemes do not lie between any of the known maternity or hibernation roosts associated with this SAC (e.g. roosts within this SAC, or associated with the Limestone Coast of South West Wales SAC). Furthermore, the schemes themselves are geographically separated and any construction effects are likely to be very local to these schemes only (i.e. within tens of metres, at most), and so the schemes will not ‘directly’ combine to affect bats from these sites (e.g. by disturbance from two schemes combining to displace etc. bats). Overall, therefore, it is considered that these schemes will not have any ‘inter- option’ in combination effects.

Pembrokeshire Marine/ Sir N N Only potentially affected by one option, therefore no ‘inter-option’ in Benfro Forol SAC combination effects

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn N N N N The three options are unlikely to have any in combination effects since the Peninsula and the Sarnau construction required for Option 8001.23 are extremely minor (valve works) SAC and this scheme is also a network solution (no new water) meaning that it will not operate in combination with 8021.3 and 8021.6 to affect this SAC. The construction works required for 8021.3 and 8021.6 are in adjacent valleys which both drain to the SAC via the Afon Dysynni, and therefore in combination effects (primarily the risk of pollution run-off) are possible if both schemes are undertaken at the same time. This is unlikely; however, it can be expected that the normal best practice mitigation and avoidance measures that will be required for each scheme will be sufficient to prevent any ‘in combination’ effects should construction be undertaken simultaneously. 8021.6 is effectively a network solution and therefore no operational effects would be expected.

European site LSE or AE from Preferred Option (alone)? I/C Comment

NEYM TA BP Pembs.

8001.3 8001.3 8021.3 8021.6 8108.4 8108.7 8001.23 8001.23 8206.11 8206.18

River Usk/ Afon Wysg SAC N N Inter-option effects only possible / likely if construction occurs in same timeframe as operation of Usk compensation begins; this is unlikely, and construction effects would be managed in any case to avoid effects.

Y Fenai a Bae Conwy/ N N N The two options are network solutions and would not be expected to combine Menai Strait and Conwy in operation to affect water resource sensitive features. In combination Bay SAC construction effects would not occur as the works required for Option 8001.23 are extremely minor (valve works) and all other effects can be avoided with best practice.

5.7.2 In-combination Effects - Other Plans

With regard to possible 'in combination' effects with other plans, it is critical to note that the WRMP explicitly accounts for land-use plans and growth forecasts when calculating future water demand (and hence areas with potential deficits). This means that ‘in combination’ water-resource effects with other plans or projects are considered and accounted for during the WRMP development process. Arguably, therefore, potential 'in combination' effects in respect of water-resource demands due to other plans or projects are unlikely since these demands are explicitly modelled when determining deficit zones and hence developing feasible options. As a result (in respect of water resources) the WRMP is not likely to make non-significant effects in other plans significant (indeed, other plans are arguably the ‘source’ of any potential effects in respect of water demand, with the WRMP having to manage potential effects that are not generated by the WRMP itself).

The exception to this is where ‘new water’ is required (i.e. a new or modified abstraction), where 'in combination' water-resource demands are possible with existing abstractions ('in combination' effects with plans are still unlikely because the WRMP is accounting for the growth within these plans). The WRMP does not explicitly consider the potential ‘in combination’ effects of non-Welsh Water abstraction or discharge consents (since this is addressed by the EA RoC process or the licence application process) nor does it attempt to list or define all possible ‘in combination’ effects, many of which cannot be accurately identified at the strategic level.

The results of the ‘in combination’ assessment with other strategic plans are documented in Appendix I. In summary, some of the plans have objectives that could conflict with the WRMP when implemented, although such conflict will be not significant as the plans have been fully considered during the WRMP development.

The principal ‘in combination’ effect may occur with the Drought Plan. It should be noted that the Drought Plan is currently in preparation and therefore will itself be subject to HRA. Whilst the Drought Plan and WRMP are written to complement each other the Drought Plan may result in significant or adverse effects on water resource sensitive sites, both on its own and in combination with the WRMP. However, the Drought Plan identifies those European sites that may be at risk and provides a mechanism for additional studies to quantify this risk and identify potential solutions that avoid or minimise adverse effects. However, it must be recognised that the Drought Plan is only ever deployed in extremis, when conditions are such that European sites are likely to be affected independently of the Drought Plan’s operation.

It is important to note that the WRMP prepared on a five-yearly cycle. This means that any changes in demand forecasts (e.g. as new plans come forward) will be included in review process and suitable intervention options proposed accordingly. This process ensures that the WRMP effectively monitors the ongoing water demands and the effectiveness of the plan in both meeting and predicting these, and allows for timely intervention should a measure not be performing as expected.

5.7.3 In-combination Effects – Other Projects

Known major projects that are likely to increase demand have been taken into account during the development of the WRMP18 and determination of future deficits; this is in addition to the growth scenarios used to determine the effects of local plans/housing growth (etc). By modelling these major projects when determining deficits and proposals, the WRMP can ensure that LSE ‘in combination’ with these projects is unlikely (in terms of water resources availability). These projects are also unlikely to have ‘in combination’ effects in relation to construction, assuming normal construction best practice, due to the relative locations of these projects and the Preferred Options.

Since the completion of the current demand forecast further information has been received regarding two significant water supplies in the North Eryri Ynys Môn WRZ. The Wylfa nuclear power plant is being decommissioned, with the best estimate of water use for this decommissioning process forecast at 2.0 Ml/d. After 2015, any volume for the Wylfa nuclear plant has been removed from the forecast. At the time of writing, it appears that a new nuclear plant is likely to be built adjacent to the existing site. However, the forecast for any additional demand required for this new plant will be incorporated within headroom rather than within the demand forecast. In addition, a liquid and solid biomass generation and wood pelleting plant is planned for a site in Llangefni. The forecast demand for this site will be an additional 1.0 Ml/d. This additional demand has been added to the non-household demand forecast from this year until the end of the planning period. Taking these into account, the existing options for the North Eryri Ynys Môn will still provide sufficient water for these projects and therefore ‘in combination’ effects are unlikely unless demands are substantially greater than those assumed. However, this cannot be determined until these projects are brought forward and water demands must be considered at the planning stage for these projects. It may be appropriate for the WRMP to clearly state the water available for these projects, for the benefit of planners considering these schemes.

It has not been possible to produce a definitive list of existing (minor) planning applications within the WRZs of each proposed Option to review possible local ‘in combination’ effects. In reality, the timescales for construction of the Options within the WRMP are such that generating a list at this stage would be of little value. Since the WRMP has been based on the most recent growth projections and Local Planning Authority plans, the combined effect of these minor developments on water demand has been modelled within the WRMP projections and it is considered that there will be no impacts in terms of water resource availability (i.e. it is unlikely that a substantial water-using development or industry would come online that had not been considered by the WRMP).

With regard to water resources and planning uncertainty, it is important to note that:

• The plan safeguards against uncertainty in Option yield and timing through ‘Target Headroom’; this is an allowance provided in the planning process (i.e. designed-in spare capacity) that ensures that any supply-demand deficit will still be met if there is an underperforming demand side measure. It is therefore extremely unlikely that additional demand or a poorly-performing Option would ‘suddenly’ result in a deficit that might affect a European site; and (in any case);

18 See the Demand Forecasts for Water Resources Management Plan 2010 Technical Report, which is included in the appendices to the WRMP.

• The WRMP prepared on a five-yearly cycle, which allows any changes in demand forecasts (e.g. as new plans come forward) to be accounted for, and for timely intervention should a measure not be performing as expected.

It is possible that there will be ‘in combination’ scheme-specific construction effects associated with future planning applications, although this can only be reasonably assessed nearer the time of construction. Given the nature of the construction proposed by the WRMP (almost invariably temporary impacts only - for example, no substantial permanent land-take) it is considered that the WRMP will not have a significant effect on any European sites ‘in combination’ with other construction projects of a similar or larger scale, since project-planning and best- practice mitigation for all projects will ensure effects will not occur. A review of this assumption will be required once these schemes reach the pre-project planning stage.

5.8 Summary of Assessment

A summary of the likely effects of the proposed options, potential in combination effects, and proposed mitigation or avoidance measures is shown in Table 5.10; further detail on the proposed measures is provided in Appendix J, which will be directly referred to or indexed in the Final WRMP:

Table 5.10 Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures

Preferred Option Aspect LSE AE Summary of Effects Key Specific Avoidance/ Mitigation (see also Appendix J)

Ref. Description

8001. 3 Connect Afon Constr. N - There is a low risk of construction-related effects on LSE and adverse effects can be avoided by: Rhythallt to the Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC (works within • Scheme-specific construction mitigation plans/best-practice Cwellyn WTW 50m at one point). measures (once construction details are fully know) must be developed to prevent accidental damage to the Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC (e.g. through accidental discharge of pollutants); these measures must be agreed with CCW. • Construction works should be avoided within approximately 200m of the river during the key salmon migration period (late summer)

Oper. N - No ‘new water’ or alterations to currently licensed None. regime.

8001.23 Connect Cefni to Constr. N - No construction required other than minor valve None Alaw Reservoir alterations.

Oper. N - No ‘new water’ or alterations to currently licensed None. regime.

8021.3 New abstraction Constr. N - There is a low risk of construction-related effects on LSE and adverse effects can be avoided by: the Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the from Afon • Scheme-specific construction mitigation plans/best-practice Dysynni at Pont Sarnau SAC if construction work is not appropriately measures (once construction details are fully know) must be y Garth (to Pen controlled, managed or mitigated. developed to prevent accidental damage to the Pen Llyn a`r y Bont WTW) It is also possible that construction may disturb the Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC interest features of Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) (e.g. through accidental discharge of pollutants); these SPA measures must be agreed with CCW. • Construction work should be scheduled to avoid the bird nesting season, to minimise the risk of effects on the interest features of Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) SPA

Table 5.10 (cont’d) Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures

Preferred Option Aspect LSE AE Summary of Effects Key Specific Avoidance/ Mitigation (see also Appendix J)

Ref. Description

Oper. N - The new abstraction would take 0.6 Ml/d (maximum) LSE and adverse effects will be avoided by specific conditions and have a maximum impact of 0.5% on medium determined by the licensing process, but there is nothing to flows in the Afon Dysynni. There would be an suggest that the proposed option cannot be accommodated. approximate 0.2% impact on low flows which could theoretically affect the Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC, although this is a very small flow variation and analysis has demonstrated that the water-resource dependent interest features are not likely to be exposed to any significant effects due to their location and characteristics.

8021.6 Constr. U N There is a low risk of construction-related effects on LSE and adverse effects can be avoided by: the Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the • Scheme-specific construction mitigation plans/best-practice Sarnau SAC if construction work is not appropriately measures (once construction details are fully know) must be controlled, managed or mitigated. developed to prevent accidental damage to the Pen Llyn a`r It is also possible that construction may disturb the Sarnau/ Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau SAC interest features of Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) (e.g. through accidental discharge of pollutants); these SPA measures must be agreed with CCW. • Construction work should be scheduled to avoid the bird nesting season, to minimise the risk of effects on the interest features of Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) SPA

Oper. N - Network solution, no operational effects anticipated None.

8108.4 Additional Constr. N - No construction required. None. releases from Usk Reservoir Oper. Y N Possible effects on some interest features of the The scheme will be subject to further HRA as part of the licence River Usk SAC, notably salmon and possible amendment process, which will ensure that there are no effects on spawning sites due to changes in flow significant or adverse effects. It should be noted that the regime – although effects are likely to be positive and scheme is required as a result of licence modifications to the are promoted by the EAW through the RoC process. Brecon licences under RoC. EAW have indicated that use of No other sites are connected by reasonable impact Usk reservoir to regulate/augment flows in the River Usk is an pathways or likely to be vulnerable to the effects of acceptable solution and therefore it is reasonable to assume the scheme. that the scheme will not result in adverse effects.

Table 5.10 (cont’d) Summary of Effects and Avoidance Measures

Preferred Option Aspect LSE AE Summary of Effects Key Specific Avoidance/ Mitigation (see also Appendix J)

Ref. Description

8108.7 Penycrug to Constr. N - There is a risk of construction-related effects on the LSE and adverse effects can be avoided by: Portis network River Usk SAC (works within 100m at one point). • Scheme-specific construction mitigation plans/best-practice upgrade measures (once construction details are fully know) must be developed to prevent accidental damage to the River Usk SAC (e.g. through accidental discharge of pollutants); these measures must be agreed with CCW. • Construction works should be avoided within approximately 200m of the river during the key salmon migration period (late summer)

Oper. N - No ‘new water’ or alterations to currently licensed None. regime.

8206.11 Bolton Hill to Constr. N The Bolton-Preseli transfer may cross both branches LSE and adverse effects can be avoided by: Preseli transfer of the western Cleddau Rivers SAC, which could be • Scheme-specific construction mitigation plans/best-practice affected if construction is not appropriately managed, measures (once construction details are fully know) must be although these crossings will be via existing road developed to prevent accidental damage to the Cleddau bridges around Haverfordwest. Rivers SAC (e.g. through accidental discharge of pollutants); these measures must be agreed with CCW; These aspects must be planned at the project inception stage.

Oper. N No ‘new water’ or alterations to currently licensed None. regime.

8206.18 Import from Tywi Constr. N The Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire transfer may LSE and adverse effects can be avoided by: Gower to cross the lower reaches of the Afon Taf and hence • Scheme-specific construction mitigation plans/best-practice Pembrokeshire the Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries SAC, which measures (once construction details are fully know) must be could be affected if construction is not appropriately developed to prevent accidental damage to the Carmarthen managed, although these crossings will probably be Bay and Estuaries SAC and Afon Tywi / River Tywi SAC via existing road bridges. Mobile species from the (e.g. through accidental discharge of pollutants); these Afon Tywi / River Tywi SAC could also be impacted measures must be agreed with CCW. when utilising the estuary. These aspects must be planned at the project inception stage.

Oper. N No ‘new water’ or alterations to currently licensed None. regime.

6. Conclusions

6.1 ‘Strategic Water Availability’ - the WRMP and the Review of Consents

DCWW uses calculations of Deployable Output (DO) when developing the WRMP to establish supply/demand balances for all the Welsh Water zones and identify those zones with potential supply deficits. DO is based on (inter alia) the water available from existing permitted abstraction consents; the Sustainability Reductions required due to the RoC and other processes; and the predicted future demand (derived from demand forecasting in accordance with the EA’s Water Resources Planning Guidelines). Options are then proposed for each WRZ to resolve identified deficits. Under the RoC and WRMP processes the RoC changes (and non-changes) to licences are valid over the planning period for the WRMP (i.e. to 2035).

By incorporating the results of the RoC process the WRMP is explicitly accounting for (and so mitigating, as far as DCWW can) effects on European sites that are occurring (or predicted to occur) as a result of existing water-resource permissions19. Together, the RoC and WRMP processes also ensure (as far as is achievable) that future changes in demand will not affect any European sites20. Consequently, the WRMP can only affect European sites through the specific schemes that it advocates to resolves deficits (i.e. either re-distribution of existing consented water resources, variation of existing permissions, or use of new resources) since the underlying assumptions regarding the sustainability of existing consents (in both deficit and non-deficit WRZs) are in accordance with the RoC and take into account accepted demand forecasts. This means that the HRA of the WRMP cannot (and should not21) attempt to determine general ‘water availability’ within WRZs (and the potential for effects on European sites due to the currently consented abstraction regime) since this would only be replicating the strategic water availability assessments that are intrinsic to the RoC and the WRMP processes22. The HRA therefore focuses on the likely outcomes of the WRMP - the likely effects of the specific schemes that it advocates to resolves deficits - and relies on the conclusions of the RoC being robust (i.e. that the abstraction regime proposed under RoC, and incorporated into the WRMP, will not have any adverse effects on any European sites).

19 Future water resource permissions will obviously be subject to their own licensing and consenting processes, and should not be issued if they are likely to adversely affect a European site alone or in combination with other permissions (including DCWW PWS permissions).

20 Calculations of DO include for Target Headroom (precautionary ‘over-capacity’ in available water) to buffer any unforeseen variation in predicted future demand; the WRMP is also reviewed on a five-yearly cycle to ensure it is performing as expected and to account for any variations between predicted and actual demand. 21 Quantification of the effects of abstraction and other consents (including non-Welsh Water consents) on European sites is not within the remit of Welsh Water (or its WRMP) since it is not the consenting authority. 22 Indeed, the approach required for any such assessment would probably be practically indistinguishable from the water availability assessments undertaken as part of the RoC and WRMP processes.

6.2 Assessment of Preferred Options

The HRA indicates that the following Preferred Options are will not have any significant effects on any European sites, assuming that normal and established environmental measures are employed at the scheme level:

• 8001.3 North Eryri/ Ynys Môn - Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

• 8001.23 North Eryri/ Ynys Môn - Connect Cefni to Alaw Reservoir

• 8021.3 Tywyn Aberdyfi - New abstraction from Afon Dysynni at Pont y Garth

• 8021.6 Transfer from new Abergynolwyn WTW

• 8108.4 Brecon-Portis - Penycrug to Portis network upgrade

• 8206.11 Transfer Water from Bolton Hill WTW to Preseli WTW

• 8206.18 Import from Tywi Gower to Pembrokeshire

Significant effects for these schemes are considered unlikely, either due to an absence of impact pathways; a sufficiently low risk of effects occurring where pathways are present; or because suitable environmental measures can be identified and relied on to avoid any significant or adverse effects. The measures likely to be required are indicated in the scheme assessment tables in Section 5 and Table 5.10, and further detailed in Appendix J (which will be used in the WRMP). Although the details of these measures cannot be fully identified at this level (since they will be dependent on scheme-specific parameters that cannot yet be determined) it is considered that there is sufficient certainty over their likely effectiveness to conclude ‘no LSE’ for these schemes.

A conclusion of ‘no adverse effects’ has been made for the following option:

• 8108.4 Brecon-Portis - Additional releases from Usk Reservoir

The Brecon-Portis scheme is driven by the RoC to reduce potential abstraction impacts on the River Usk SAC and will have significant effects, although these will not be adverse based on the available information (and such effects would be entirely contrary to the intended outcome); however, there is arguably a small degree of residual uncertainty which cannot be concluded until investigation schemes are completed in association with any licence variation (which are driven by inclusion of the scheme in the WRMP).

Generally it is inappropriate for a strategic plan to contain elements that might have adverse effects on a European site (i.e. there is uncertainty over the outcomes). However, this is more difficult for strategies that are essentially a collection of specific but high-level conceptual schemes (such as the WRMP, or some Transport Plans) since potential effects of schemes are identifiable, but meaningful assessment of the likely effects (and hence the identification of appropriate mitigation or avoidance measures) cannot always be made. Furthermore, water resource plans are not especially analogous to planning policy documents, and the WRMP will not ‘control’ future development in the same way that a land-use plan would - it simply identifies potential solutions to predicted deficits. It does not provide the same implicit approval of derived, lower tier plans and projects that are ‘in

accordance’ with it; or have the same influence over the decisions made on projects; or have the same direct or indirect legal effects for the use of land and the regulation of projects.

Also, the normal approach with land-use plans (i.e. including caveats and avoidance measures/ mitigation within the policies to help ensure that adverse effects will not occur) cannot be easily replicated as the ‘specific’ nature of the schemes arguably requires appropriate, specific mitigation that cannot necessarily be identified until the scheme parameters are known.

Despite this, it is possible to identify some mitigation or avoidance measures that can be relied on to ensure that adverse effects will not occur as a result of the WRMP. General and scheme-specific mitigation and avoidance measures, which are known to be reliable, are provided in Appendix J; this will be cross-referenced by the WRMP. The HRA will also form part of the WRMP package to ensure that future planning takes account of the identified issues at an early stage. In addition, the WRMP is not a rigid set of proposals that cannot be deviated from - flexibility is retained as other options (e.g. Feasible Options) are available for investigation should the Preferred Options be shown to have unacceptable effects on any European sites at a later stage.

It must also be recognised that WRMP is inherently flexible due to the formal five-yearly review process, which provides a clear mechanism for monitoring performance and an opportunity to adjust the proposals to reflect any changing circumstances. Finally, all the Options will, of course, be subject to project-level environmental assessment as part of the normal EIA, planning and/or EAW consenting processes, which will necessarily include assessments of their potential to affect European sites during their construction or operation. These measures can therefore be relied on to ensure that adverse effects do not occur as a result of the implementation of the WRMP.

6.3 Conclusion

The WRMP accounts for the Sustainability Reductions required by the RoC, and so explicitly accounts for effects on European sites that are occurring (or predicted to occur) as a result of existing water-resource permissions. Together, the RoC and WRMP processes also ensure (as far as is achievable) that future changes in demand will not affect any European sites (this is aided by the WRMP’s five-year review cycle, which monitors the performance of the WRMP and allows for adjusted demand forecasts).

The preferred supply side options proposed by the WRMP aim to either utilise ‘new water’23 in a WRZ, or enhance the use of existing licensed resources through infrastructure improvements. They could therefore affect European sites through their construction or operation.

The HRA has determined that most of the Preferred (supply side) Options are unlikely to have significant effects (alone or in combination) on any European sites, either due to an absence of impact pathways; a sufficiently low risk of effects occurring where pathways are present; or because suitable environmental measures can be identified and relied on to avoid any significant or adverse effects. Demand-side options will not have any possible significant effects that can be assessed at the strategic level.

23 i.e. using previously unlicensed resources or modifying existing consents to utilise additional water from an existing licensed source.

The WRMP has also concluded that the Brecon-Portis: Additional releases from Usk Reservoir option will have significant effects, but that these are unlikely to be adverse, based on the available data and information. ;

Critically, however, the WRMP will retain flexibility - it is not a rigid set of proposals that cannot be deviated from - and this (together with the safeguards provided by the five-year review cycle and the normal project-level HRA requirements) can be relied on to ensure that adverse effects will not occur on any European site as a result of the implementation of the WRMP.

In summary, therefore, it is considered that the WRMP will have no significant or adverse effects on any European sites as a result of its implementation, and that sufficient safeguards are in place to ensure this.

Appendix A Figures

Figures are not included within the HRA document for security reasons; plans are available to key consultees on request from Welsh Water at [email protected].

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Appendix B European sites and associated protected areas

Box B1 European sites and associated protected areas

Special Area of SAC Designated under the EU Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild Conservation fauna and flora, and implemented in the UK through the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended).

Sites of Community SCI Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) are sites that have been adopted by the European Commission Importance but not yet formally designated by the government of each country. Although not formally designated they are nevertheless fully protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended).

Candidate SAC cSAC Candidate SACs (cSACs) are sites that have been submitted to the European Commission, but not yet formally adopted. Although these sites are still undergoing designation and adoption they are still fully protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, & c.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (as amended).

Possible SACs pSAC Sites that have been formally advised to UK Government, but not yet submitted to the European Commission. As a matter of policy the Governments in England, Scotland and Wales extend the same protection to these sites in respect of new development as that afforded to SACs.

Draft SACs dSAC Areas that have been formally advised to UK government as suitable for selection as SACs, but have not been formally approved by government as sites for public consultation. These are not protected (unless covered by some other designation) and it is likely that their existence will not be established through desk study except through direct contact with the relevant statutory authority; however, the statutory authority is likely to take into account the proposed reasons for designation when considering potential impacts on them.

Special Protection SPA Designated under EU Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the ‘old Wild Area Birds Directive’) and Directive 2009/147/EC on the Conservation of Wild Birds (the ‘new Wild Birds Directive, which repeals the ‘old Wild Birds Directive’), and protected by Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. These directives are implemented in the UK through the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended), the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &C.) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1995 (as amended) and the Offshore Marine Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 2007.

Potential SPA pSPA These are sites that are still undergoing designation and have not been designated by the Secretary of State; however, ECJ case law indicates that these sites are protected under Article 4(4) of Directive 2009/147/EC (which in theory provides a higher level of protection than the Habitats Directive, which does not apply until the sites are designated as SPAs), and as a matter of policy the Governments in England, Scotland and Wales extend the same protection to these sites in respect of new development as that afforded to SPAs, and they may be protected by some other designation (e.g. SSSI).

Ramsar The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention or Wetlands Convention) was adopted in Ramsar, Iran in February 1971. The UK ratified the Convention in 1976. In the UK Ramsar sites are generally underpinned by notification of these areas as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) (or Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) in Northern Ireland). Ramsar sites therefore receive statutory protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. However, as a matter of policy the Governments in England, Scotland and Wales extend the same protection to listed Ramsar sites in respect of new development as that afforded to SPAs and SACs.

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Appendix C European sites and interest features

Table C1 SACs and Interest Features within 20km (based on www.jncc.gov.uk) (Note: I = Annex I Habitat; II = Annexe II Species; * = Feature that is Primary Reason for site selection; all other features are Qualifying Features)

SAC Interest Features

Aberbargoed Grasslands Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Afon Eden – Cors Goch Margaritifera margaritifera II Trawsfynydd Active raised bogs I*

Luronium natans II

Salmo salar II

Lutra lutra II

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Luronium natans II Cwellyn Salmo salar II

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation I

Lutra lutra II

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Nanojuncetea I

Afon Teifi/ River Teifi Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation I

Luronium natans II

Cottus gobio II

Lutra lutra II

Salmo salar II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Lampetra planeri II

Petromyzon marinus II

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Nanojuncetea I

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table C1 (contd) SACs and Interest Features within 20km (based on www.jncc.gov.uk) (Note: I = Annex I Habitat; II = Annexe II Species; * = Feature that is Primary Reason for site selection; all other features are Qualifying Features)

SAC Interest Features

Afon Tywi/ River Tywi Alosa alosa II

Alosa fallax II

Lutra lutra II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Lampetra planeri II

Petromyzon marinus II

Cottus gobio II

Afonydd Cleddau/ Active raised bogs I* Cleddau Rivers Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Cottus gobio II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Lampetra planeri II

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation I

Lutra lutra II

Petromyzon marinus II

Alyn Valley Woods/ Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I* Coedwigoedd Dyffryn Alun Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I

Avon Gorge Woodlands Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Bae Cemlyn/ Cemlyn Bay Coastal lagoons I*

Perennial vegetation of stony banks I

Berwyn a Mynyddoedd de Blanket bogs I* Clwyd/ Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains European dry heaths I

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I

Transition mires and quaking bogs I

Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) I

Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Blackmill Woodlands Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Blaen Cynon Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

SAC Interest Features

Brecon Beacons/ Bannau European dry heaths I Brycheiniog Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels I

Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Bredon Hill Limoniscus violaceus II

Cadair Idris Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Nanojuncetea I

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

European dry heaths I

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels I

Blanket bogs I*

Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia ladani) I

Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus II

Alkaline fens I

Caeau Mynydd Mawr Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Cardiff Beech Woods Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests I

Cardigan Bay/ Bae Submerged or partially submerged sea caves I Ceredigion Halichoerus grypus II

Petromyzon marinus II

Reefs I

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time I

Tursiops truncatus II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

SAC Interest Features

Carmarthen Bay and Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time I Estuaries/ Bae Caerfyrddin ac Aberoedd Large shallow inlets and bays I

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand I

Estuaries I

Petromyzon marinus II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Alosa alosa II

Alosa fallax II

Lutra lutra II

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide I

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) I

Carmarthen Bay Dunes/ Embryonic shifting dunes I Twyni Bae Caerfyrddin Humid dune slacks I

Petalophyllum ralfsii II

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") I

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) I

Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") I*

Vertigo angustior II

Liparis loeselii II

Cernydd Carmel Turloughs I*

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

European dry heaths I

Active raised bogs I*

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Clogwyni Pen Llyn/ Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts Seacliffs of Lleyn I

Coed Cwm Einion Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Coed y Cerrig Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Coedwigoedd Dyffryn Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines Elwy/ Elwy Valley Woods I*

Coedwigoedd Penrhyn Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I Creuddyn/ Creuddyn Peninsula Woods Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles I* Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

SAC Interest Features

Coedydd a Cheunant Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles Rheidol/ Rheidol Woods and Gorge I

Coedydd Aber Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Coedydd Derw a European dry heaths I Safleoedd Ystlumod Meirion/ Meirionnydd Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I Oakwoods and Bat Sites Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Bog woodland I*

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation I

Rhinolophus hipposideros II

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

Coedydd Llawr-y-glyn Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Coedydd Nedd a Mellte Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Coetiroedd Cwm Elan/ Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I* Elan Valley Woodlands Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

European dry heaths I

Cors Caron Lutra lutra II

Bog woodland I*

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion I

Active raised bogs I*

Transition mires and quaking bogs I

Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration I

Cors Fochno Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion I

Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration I

Active raised bogs I*

Corsydd Eifionydd Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus II

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Transition mires and quaking bogs I

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

SAC Interest Features

Corsydd Llyn/ Lleyn Fens Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae I*

Alkaline fens I

Vertigo geyeri II

Vertigo moulinsiana II

Corsydd Môn/ Anglesey Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I Fens Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Vertigo geyeri II

Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae I*

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. I

Alkaline fens I

Coenagrion mercuriale II

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Cotswold Beechwoods Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I

Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests I

Crymlyn Bog/ Cors Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae I* Crymlyn Transition mires and quaking bogs I

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Cwm Cadlan Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Cwm Cadlan Alkaline fens I

Cwm Clydach Woodlands Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests I / Coedydd Cwm Clydach Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer (Quercion robori- petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion) I

Cwm Doethie – Mynydd European dry heaths I Mallaen Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

SAC Interest Features

Dee Estuary/ Aber Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) I Dyfrdwy Petalophyllum ralfsii II

Humid dune slacks I

Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") I*

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Petromyzon marinus II

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") I

Embryonic shifting dunes I

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts I

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand I

Annual vegetation of drift lines I

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide I

Estuaries I

Deeside and Buckley Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I Newt Sites Triturus cristatus II

Downton Gorge Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Drostre Bank Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Dunraven Bay Rumex rupestris II

Elenydd Blanket bogs I*

Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae I

European dry heaths I

Luronium natans II

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Nanojuncetea I

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

SAC Interest Features

Eryri/ Snowdonia Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Galeopsietalia ladani) I

Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands I

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Nanojuncetea I

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels I

Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus II

Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Luronium natans II

Species-rich Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and submountain areas in continental Europe) I*

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion I

Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) I*

Alkaline fens I

Alpine pioneer formations of the Caricion bicoloris-atrofuscae I*

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Blanket bogs I*

Alpine and Boreal heaths I

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands I

European dry heaths I

Exmoor Heaths Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

European dry heaths I

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Alkaline fens I

Blanket bogs I*

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts I

Fenn`s, Whixall, Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration I Bettisfield, Wem and Cadney Mosses Active raised bogs I*

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

SAC Interest Features

Glannau Môn: Cors heli / Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand I Anglesey Coast: Saltmarsh Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) I

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide I

Estuaries I

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts I

European dry heaths I

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

Glan-traeth Triturus cristatus II

Glaswelltiroedd Cefn Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II Cribwr/ Cefn Cribwr Grasslands Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Glynllifon Rhinolophus hipposideros II

Gower Ash Woods/ Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I* Coedydd Ynn Gwyr Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Coenagrion mercuriale II

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

European dry heaths I

Granllyn Triturus cristatus II

Great Orme`s Head/ Pen Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I y Gogarth European dry heaths I

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts I

Grogwynion Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae I

European dry heaths I

Gweunydd Blaencleddau Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Transition mires and quaking bogs I

Alkaline fens I

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

Coenagrion mercuriale II

Blanket bogs I*

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C10

SAC Interest Features

Halkyn Mountain/ Mynydd Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae I Helygain Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I

Triturus cristatus II

European dry heaths I

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Johnstown Newt Sites Triturus cristatus II

Kenfig/ Cynffig Liparis loeselii II

Petalophyllum ralfsii II

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) I

Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") I*

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. I

Humid dune slacks I

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) I

Limestone Coast of South Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") I* West Wales/ Arfordir Calchfaen de Orllewin Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I Cymru Caves not open to the public I

European dry heaths I

Petalophyllum ralfsii II

Gentianella anglica II

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves I

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts I

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum II

Llangorse Lake/ Llyn Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation Syfaddan I

Llwyn Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Llyn Dinam Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation I

Lyppard Grange Ponds Triturus cristatus II

Mendip Limestone Rhinolophus ferrumequinum II Grasslands Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Caves not open to the public I

European dry heaths I

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C11

SAC Interest Features

Migneint–Arenig–Dduallt Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds I

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Nanojuncetea I

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

Blanket bogs I*

European dry heaths I

Montgomery Canal Luronium natans II

Morfa Harlech a Morfa Petalophyllum ralfsii II Dyffryn Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") I

Embryonic shifting dunes I

Humid dune slacks I

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) I

Mwyngloddiau Fforest Rhinolophus hipposideros II Gwydir/ Gwydyr Forest Mines Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae I

Mynydd Epynt Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus II

North Pembrokeshire Barbastella barbastellus II Woodlands/ Coedydd Gogledd Sir Benfro Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

North Somerset and Rhinolophus ferrumequinum II Mendip Bats Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco-Brometalia) I

Rhinolophus hipposideros II

Caves not open to the public I

North West European dry heaths I Pembrokeshire Commons/ Comins Luronium natans II Gogledd Orllewin Sir Benfro Transition mires and quaking bogs I Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

Pembrokeshire Bat Sites Rhinolophus ferrumequinum II and Bosherston Lakes/ Safleoedd Ystlum Sir Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. I Benfro a Llynnoedd Bosherston Rhinolophus hipposideros II Lutra lutra II

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C12

SAC Interest Features

Pembrokeshire Marine/ Estuaries I Sir Benfro Forol Large shallow inlets and bays I

Reefs I

Rumex rupestris II

Halichoerus grypus II

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) I

Petromyzon marinus II

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves I

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Alosa alosa II

Lutra lutra II

Alosa fallax II

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time I

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide I

Coastal lagoons I*

Pen Llyn a`r Sarnau/ Lutra lutra II Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand I

Tursiops truncatus II

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves I

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time I

Large shallow inlets and bays I

Coastal lagoons I*

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) I

Estuaries I

Reefs I

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide I

Halichoerus grypus II

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C13

SAC Interest Features

Preseli Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus II

Coenagrion mercuriale II

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

European dry heaths I

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion I

Alkaline fens I

Rhinog European dry heaths I

Alpine and Boreal heaths I

Blanket bogs I*

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion I

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Luronium natans II

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix I

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae and/or of the Isoëto- Nanojuncetea I

Rhos Goch Transition mires and quaking bogs I

Active raised bogs I*

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Salicion albae) I*

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Bog woodland I*

Rhos Llawr-cwrt Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus II

Rhos Talglas Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

River Clun Margaritifera margaritifera II

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C14

SAC Interest Features

River Dee and Bala Lake/ Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion Afon Dyfrdwy a Llyn Tegid vegetation I

Luronium natans II

Salmo salar II

Cottus gobio II

Lutra lutra II

Lampetra planeri II

Petromyzon marinus II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

River Usk/ Afon Wysg Alosa fallax II

Cottus gobio II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Lampetra planeri II

Alosa alosa II

Lutra lutra II

Salmo salar II

Petromyzon marinus II

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation I

River Wye/ Afon Gwy Lampetra planeri II

Austropotamobius pallipes II

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho-Batrachion vegetation I

Cottus gobio II

Petromyzon marinus II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

Alosa alosa II

Alosa fallax II

Salmo salar II

Lutra lutra II

Transition mires and quaking bogs I

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C15

SAC Interest Features

Severn Estuary/ Môr Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time I Hafren Estuaries I

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide I

Reefs I

Alosa fallax II

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) I

Petromyzon marinus II

Lampetra fluviatilis II

St David`s / Ty Ddewi Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts I

European dry heaths I

Luronium natans II

Sugar Loaf Woodlands Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Tanat and Vyrnwy Bat Rhinolophus hipposideros Sites/ Safleoedd Ystlumod Tanat ac Efyrnwy II

The Stiperstones and The European dry heaths I Hollies Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles I

Usk Bat Sites/ Safleoedd Rhinolophus hipposideros II Ystlumod Wysg Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration I

European dry heaths I

Blanket bogs I*

Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation I

Caves not open to the public I

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I*

Wye Valley and Forest of Rhinolophus ferrumequinum II Dean Bat Sites/ Safleoedd Ystlumod Rhinolophus hipposideros Dyffryn Gwy a Fforest y Ddena II

Wye Valley Woodlands/ Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines I* Coetiroedd Dyffryn Gwy Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests I

Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles I*

Rhinolophus hipposideros II

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C16

SAC Interest Features

Y Fenai a Bae Conwy/ Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide I Menai Strait and Conwy Bay Large shallow inlets and bays I

Reefs I

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time I

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves I

Y Twyni o Abermenai i Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation I Aberffraw/ Abermenai to Aberffraw Dunes Humid dune slacks I Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") I

Petalophyllum ralfsii II

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) I

Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") I*

Rumex rupestris II

Embryonic shifting dunes I

Yerbeston Tops Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) I

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia II

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C17

Table C2 SPAs and Interest Features (based on www.jncc.gov.uk) (Note: Art = Article 4.1 or 4.2 of the Birds Directive; B = Breeding; P = Passage; R = Resident; W = Wintering; ( ) = Proposed for removal in SPA review; + = Added in SPA review

SPA Interest Features Art. B P R W

Bae Caerfyrddin/ Carmarthen Bay Common scoter Melanitta nigra W

Berwyn Hen harrier Circus cyaneus B

Merlin Falco columbarius B

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus B

Red kite Milvus milvus (B)

Burry Inlet Curlew Numenius arquata (W)

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Calidris alpina alpina (W)

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola (W)

Knot Calidris canutus (W)

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus W

Pintail Anas acuta W

Redshank Tringa totanus (W)

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna (W)

Shoveler Anas clypeata (W)

Teal Anas crecca (W)

Waterfowl assemblage W

Wigeon Anas penelope (W)

Castlemartin Coast Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax B W+

Craig yr Aderyn (Bird`s Rock) Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax B W

Dyfi Estuary / Aber Dyfi Greenland white-fronted goose Anser albifrons flavirostris W

Elenydd – Mallaen Merlin Falco columbarius B

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus B+

Red kite Milvus milvus (B)

Glannau Aberdaron and Ynys Enlli / Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax B W+ Aberdaron Coast and Bardsey Island Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus B

Glannau Ynys Gybi / Holy Island Coast Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax B+ W

Grassholm Gannet Morus bassanus B

Liverpool Bay / Bae Lerpwl Common scoter Melanitta nigra W

Red-throated diver Gavia stellata W

Waterfowl assemblage W

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C18

Table C2 (contd.) SPAs and Interest Features (based on www.jncc.gov.uk) (Note: Art = Article 4.1 or 4.2 of the Birds Directive; B = Breeding; P = Passage; R = Resident; W = Wintering; ( ) = Proposed for removal in SPA review; + = Added in SPA review

SPA Interest Features Art. B P R W

Mersey Estuary Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica (W)

Curlew Numenius arquata (W)

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Calidris alpina alpina W

Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria W

Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus (W)

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola (W)

Lapwing Vanellus vanellus (W)

Pintail Anas acuta W

Redshank Tringa totanus P W

Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula P

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna W

Teal Anas crecca W

Waterfowl assemblage W+

Wigeon Anas penelope (W)

Migneint - Dduallt Hen harrier Circus cyaneus B

Merlin Falco columbarius B

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus (B)

Mynydd Cilan, Trwyn y Wylfa ac Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax B W Ynysoedd Sant Tudwal

Ramsey and St David`s Peninsula Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax B W+ Coast

Severn Estuary Bewick's swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii W

Curlew Numenius arquata W+

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Calidris alpina alpina W

Gadwall Anas strepera (W)

Pintail Anas acuta W+

Redshank Tringa totanus W

Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula P+

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna W

Waterfowl assemblage W

White-fronted goose Anser albifrons albifrons (W)

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C19

SPA Interest Features Art. B P R W

Skokholm and Skomer Chough Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax B+

Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus B+

Manx shearwater Puffinus puffinus B

Puffin Fratercula arctica B

Razorbill Alca torda (B)

Seabird assemblage B+

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus B+

Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus B

The Dee Estuary Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica W

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica W

Common tern Sterna hirundo B

Curlew Numenius arquata W

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Calidris alpina alpina W

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola W

Knot Calidris canutus W

Little tern Sterna albifrons B

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus W

Pintail Anas acuta W

Redshank Tringa totanus P W

Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis P

Shelduck Tadorna tadorna W

Teal Anas crecca W

Waterfowl assemblage W

Traeth Lafan / Lavan Sands, Conway Curlew Numenius arquata (W) Bay

Great crested grebe Podiceps cristatus (P)

Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus W

Walmore Common Bewick's swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii W

Ynys Feurig, Cemlyn Bay and The Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea B Skerries

Common tern Sterna hirundo B

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii B

Sandwich tern Sterna sandvicensis B

Ynys Seiriol / Puffin Island Cormorant Phalacrocorax carbo B

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C20

Table C3 Ramsar Sites Considered During HRA

Ramsar Site Cri. Features

Burry Inlet 5 41655 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003).

6 Redshank Tringa totanus; Pintail Anas acuta; Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralaegus; Knot Calidris canutus; Shoveler Anas clypeata.

Cors Caron 2 The site supports an important population of the butterfly Coenonympha tullia, occurring at the southern limit of its range in Britain. Coenophila subrosea (rosy marsh moth); Lutra lutra (otter) Arvicola terrestris (water vole).

3 Supports a rich vegetation assemblage and possesses a surface pattern characteristic of this mire habitat type. Sphagnum pulchrum, S. subsecundum, Atrichum tenellum - nationally scarce; Riccia huebeneriana, Scapania paludicola - nationally rare.

6 Whooper swan Cygnus cygnus.

Cors Fochno and 1 Largest expanse of primary raised mire in lowland Britain; the largest estuarine raised mire, and third-largest Dyfi `active` raised mire in Britain. Habitats Directive features present include: Active raised bogs; Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration; Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion.

Corsydd Mon a 1 A suite of base-rich, calcareous fens which are a rare habitat type within the UK’s biogeographical zone. Habitats Llyn/Anglesey and Directive Annex I features present include: Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp.; Llyn Fens Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix; Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae); Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae; Alkaline fens; Vertigo geyeri; Coenagrion mercuriale; Euphydryas aurinia.

3 The site supports a diverse flora and fauna with associated rare species and is of special value for maintaining the genetic and ecological diversity of the region.

Crymlyn Bog 1 Largest example of valley floodplain topogenous mire in South Wales, and one of the largest surviving fens in the west of Britain. Habitats Directive Annex I features present include: Transition mires and quaking bogs; Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae; Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior.

2 Supports a substantial population of the nationally-rare slender cotton-grass Eriophorum gracile, and a rich invertebrate fauna including many rare and highly localised species.

3 The site supports 199 vascular plant species including 17 regionally-uncommon and one nationally rare.

Llyn Idwal 1 A small, shallow, oligotrophic corrie lake. The semi-circular rock basin (or cwm) containing the lake is one of the finest examples in Snowdonia.

2 Species-rich plant community, including almost all of the species typical of oligotrophic waters in Britain. Notable species include Elatine hexandra and Subularia aquatica (both nationally scarce) and Pilularia globulifera (vulnerable at a European level).

Llyn Tegid 1 Largest natural lake in Wales, lying deep in a formerly glaciated trough.

2 Plant species growing in or beside the lake are mudwort Limosa aquatica, six-stamened waterwort Elatine hexandra, water sedge Carex aquatilis and floating water plantain Luronium natans, all of which are scarce in Britain. The latter species is regarded as vulnerable on a global scale. This site is also one of only six sites in Britain for the whitefish or gwyniad Coregonus lavaretus; the Welsh population of this fish is genetically distinct. Llyn Tegid is also an unusual habitat for the normally riverine fish grayling Thymallus thymallus. The Nationally Rare snail Myxas glutinosa has been rediscovered in the shallow gravels of the lake shore.

Midland Meres & 1 Diverse range of habitats from open water to raised bog. Mosses Phase 2 (Wales) 2 Supports a number of rare species of plants associated with wetlands, including the nationally scarce cowbane Cicuta virosa and, elongated sedge Carex elongata. Also present are the nationally scarce bryophytes Dicranum affine and Sphagnum pulchrum. Also supports an assemblage of invertebrates including several rare species. There are 16 species of British Red Data Book insect listed for this site including the following endangered species: the moth Glyphipteryx lathamella, the caddisfly Hagenella clathrata and the sawfly Trichiosoma vitellinae.

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C21

Table C3 (continued) Ramsar Sites Considered During HRA

Ramsar Site Cri. Features

Severn Estuary 1 Habitats Directive Annex I features present on the SAC include: Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time; Estuaries; Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae).

3 Due to unusual estuarine communities, reduced diversity and high productivity.

4 Important for the run of migratory fish between sea and river via estuary. Species include Salmon Salmo salar, sea trout S. trutta, sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis, allis shad Alosa alosa, twaite shad A. fallax, and eel Anguilla anguilla. It is also of particular importance for migratory birds during spring and autumn.

5 70919 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003).

6 Bewick's swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii; White-fronted goose Anser albifrons albifrons; Shelduck Tadorna tadorna; Gadwall Anas strepera; Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina; Redshank Tringa totanus; Lesser black-backed gull Larus fuscus; Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula; Teal Anas crecca; Pintail Anas acuta.

8 The fish of the whole estuarine and river system is one of the most diverse in Britain, with over 110 species recorded. Salmon Salmo salar, sea trout S. trutta, sea lamprey Petromyzon marinus, river lamprey Lampetra fluviatilis, allis shad Alosa alosa, twaite shad A. fallax, and eel Anguilla anguilla use the Severn Estuary as a key migration route to their spawning grounds in the many tributaries that flow into the estuary. The site is important as a feeding and nursery ground for many fish species particularly allis shad Alosa alosa and twaite shad A. fallax which feed on mysid shrimps in the salt wedge.

The Dee Estuary 1 Extensive intertidal mud and sand flats with large expanses of saltmarsh towards the head of the estuary. Habitats Directive Annex I features present on the pSAC include: Estuaries; Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide; Annual vegetation of drift lines; Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts; Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand; Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae); Embryonic shifting dunes; Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria (“white dunes”); Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation (“grey dunes”); Humid dune slacks.

5 74230 waterfowl (5 year peak mean 1998/99-2002/2003).

6 Shelduck Tadorna tadorna; Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralaegus; Curlew Numenius arquata; Redshank Tringa totanus; Teal Anas crecca; Pintail Anas acuta; Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola; Knot Calidris canutus; Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina; Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa islandica; Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica; Turnstone Arenaria interpres.

Walmore Common

NOTES ON CRITERIA

1 Contains a representative, rare, or unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type found within the biogeographic region.

2 Supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.

3 Supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biodiversity of a particular biogeographic region.

4 Supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions.

5 Regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds.

6 Regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird.

7 Supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families, life-history stages, species interactions and/or populations that are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity.

8 An important source of food for fish, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend.

9 Regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species.

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

C22

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Appendix D Interest feature abbreviations

Table D1 SAC features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Active raised bogs Active raised bogs

Alkaline fens Alkaline fens

Alluvial forests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, Alluvial forests Salicion albae)

Alosa alosa Allis shad

Alosa fallax Twaite shad

Alpine and Boreal heaths Alpine and Boreal heaths

Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands

Alpine pioneer formations of the Caricion bicoloris-atrofuscae Alpine pioneer formations

Anisus vorticulus Ramshorn snail

Annual vegetation of drift lines Annual vegetation of drift lines

Apium repens Creeping marshwort

Asperulo-Fagetum beech forests Beech forests on neutral to rich soils

Atlantic acidophilous beech forests with Ilex and sometimes also Taxus in the shrublayer Beech forests on acid soils (Quercion robori-petraeae or Ilici-Fagenion)

Atlantic decalcified fixed dunes (Calluno-Ulicetea) Coastal dune heathland

Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia maritimae) Atlantic Salt Meadows

Austropotamobius pallipes White-clawed crayfish

Barbastella barbastellus Barbastelle bat

Blanket bogs Blanket bog

Bog woodland Bog woodland

Buxbaumia viridis Green shield-moss

Calaminarian grasslands of the Violetalia calaminariae Grassland on heavy metal-rich soils

Calcareous and calcshist screes of the montane to alpine levels (Thlaspietea rotundifolii) Calcareous scree

Calcareous fens with Cladium mariscus and species of the Caricion davallianae Calcareous fens

Calcareous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation Calcareous rocky slopes

Caledonian forest Caledonian forest

Caves not open to the public Caves not open to the public

Coastal dunes with Juniperus spp. Dunes with juniper thickets

Coastal lagoons Coastal lagoons

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table D1 (cont’d.) SAC features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Cobitis taenia Spined loach

Coenagrion mercuriale Southern Damselfly

Cottus gobio Bullhead

Cypripedium calceolus Lady`s-slipper orchid

Decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrum nigrum Decalcified fixed dunes with crowberry

Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration Degraded raised bog

Depressions on peat substrates of the Rhynchosporion Depressions on peat substrates

Drepanocladus (Hamatocaulis) vernicosus Slender green feather-moss

Dry Atlantic coastal heaths with Erica vagans Dry coastal heaths

Dunes with Hippophae rhamnoides Dunes with sea-buckthorn

Dunes with Salix repens ssp. argentea (Salicion arenariae) Dunes with creeping willow

Embryonic shifting dunes Embryonic shifting dunes

Estuaries Estuaries

Euphydryas (Eurodryas, Hypodryas) aurinia Marsh fritillary butterfly

European dry heaths Dry heaths

Fixed dunes with herbaceous vegetation ("grey dunes") Grey dunes

Gentianella anglica Early gentian

Halichoerus grypus Grey seal

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation of Chara spp. Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters

Humid dune slacks Humid dune slacks

Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the montane to alpine levels Hydrophilous tall herb communities

Inland dunes with open Corynephorus and Agrostis grasslands Inland dunes

Inland salt meadows Inland saltmarshes

Juniperus communis formations on heaths or calcareous grasslands Juniper on heaths and calcareous grasslands

Lampetra fluviatilis River Lamprey

Lampetra planeri Brook lamprey

Large shallow inlets and bays Large shallow inlets and bays

Limestone pavements Limestone pavements

Limoniscus violaceus Violet click beetle

Liparis loeselii Fen orchid

Lowland hay meadows (Alopecurus pratensis, Sanguisorba officinalis) Lowland hay meadows

Lucanus cervus Stag beetle

Luronium natans Floating water-plantain

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table D1 (cont’d.) SAC features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Lutra lutra Otter

Machairs Machair

Margaritifera margaritifera Freshwater pearl mussel

Marsupella profunda Western rustwort

Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs (Sarcocornetea fruticosi) Mediterranean saltmarsh scrub

Mediterranean temporary ponds Mediterranean temporary ponds

Molinia meadows on calcareous, peaty or clayey-silt-laden soils (Molinion caeruleae) Purple moor-grass meadows

Mountain hay meadows Mountain hay meadows

Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide Mudflats and sandflats

Myotis bechsteini Bechstein`s bat

Najas flexilis Slender naiad

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds Natural dystrophic lakes

Natural eutrophic lakes with Magnopotamion or Hydrocharition-type vegetation Natural eutrophic lakes

Northern Atlantic wet heaths with Erica tetralix Wet heaths

Old acidophilous oak woods with Quercus robur on sandy plains Dry oak-dominated woodland

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles Western acidic oak woodland

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters with vegetation of the Littorelletea uniflorae Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters and/or of the Isoëto-Nanojuncetea

Oligotrophic waters containing very few minerals of sandy plains (Littorelletalia uniflorae) Nutrient-poor shallow waters

Perennial vegetation of stony banks Perennial vegetation of stony banks

Petalophyllum ralfsii Petalwort

Petrifying springs with tufa formation (Cratoneurion) Petrifying springs with tufa

Petromyzon marinus Sea lamprey

Phoca vitulina Common seal

Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise

Reefs Reefs

Rhinolophus ferrumequinum Greater horseshoe bat

Rhinolophus hipposideros Lesser Horseshoe Bat

Rumex rupestris Shore dock

Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand Salicornia and other annuals

Salmo salar Atlantic salmon

Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time Sandbanks

Saxifraga hirculus Marsh saxifrage

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table D1 (cont’d.) SAC features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Semi-natural dry grasslands and scrubland facies: on calcareous substrates (Festuco- Calcareous dry grassland and scrub Brometalia)

Shifting dunes along the shoreline with Ammophila arenaria ("white dunes") White dunes

Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands

Siliceous rocky slopes with chasmophytic vegetation Siliceous rocky slopes

Siliceous scree of the montane to snow levels (Androsacetalia alpinae and Siliceous scree Galeopsietalia ladani)

Spartina swards (Spartinion maritimae) Spartina swards

Species-rich Nardus grassland, on siliceous substrates in mountain areas (and Species-rich Nardus grassland submountain areas in continental Europe)

Stable xerothermophilous formations with Buxus sempervirens on rock slopes Natural box scrub (Berberidion p.p.)

Sub-Arctic Salix spp. scrub Mountain willow scrub

Sub-Atlantic and medio-European oak or oak-hornbeam forests of the Carpinion betuli Oak-hornbeam forests

Submarine structures made by leaking gases Submarine structures made by leaking gases

Submerged or partially submerged sea caves Sea caves

Taxus baccata woods of the British Isles Taxus baccata woods

Temperate Atlantic wet heaths with Erica ciliaris and Erica tetralix Atlantic wet heath

Tilio-Acerion forests of slopes, screes and ravines Tilio-Acerion forests

Transition mires and quaking bogs Transition mires and quaking bogs

Trichomanes speciosum Killarney fern

Triturus cristatus Great crested newt

Turloughs Turloughs

Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin

Vegetated sea cliffs of the Atlantic and Baltic coasts Vegetated sea cliffs

Vertigo angustior Narrow-mouthed whorl snail

Vertigo genesii Round-mouthed whorl snail

Vertigo geyeri Geyer`s whorl snail

Vertigo moulinsiana Desmoulin`s whorl snail

Water courses of plain to montane levels with the Ranunculion fluitantis and Callitricho- Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation Batrachion vegetation

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table D1 SPA features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Acrocephalus paludicola Aquatic warbler

Acrocephalus schoenobaenus Sedge warbler

Acrocephalus scirpaceus Reed warbler

Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper

Alca torda Razorbill

Alcedo atthis Kingfisher

Anas acuta Pintail

Anas clypeata Shoveler

Anas crecca Teal

Anas penelope Wigeon

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard

Anas querquedula Garganey

Anas strepera Gadwall

Anser albifrons albifrons White-fronted goose

Anser albifrons flavirostris Greenland white-fronted goose

Anser anser Greylag goose

Anser brachyrhynchus Pink-footed goose

Anser fabalis fabalis Taiga bean goose

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle

Arenaria interpres Turnstone

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl

Aythya ferina Pochard

Aythya fuligula Tufted duck

Aythya marila Scaup

Botaurus stellaris Bittern

Branta bernicla bernicla Dark-bellied brent goose

Branta bernicla hrota Light-bellied brent goose

Branta leucopsis Barnacle goose

Breeding bird assemblage Breeding bird assemblage

Bucephala clangula Goldeneye

Burhinus oedicnemus Stone-curlew

Calidris alba Sanderling

Calidris alpina alpina Dunlin (ssp. alpina)

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table D1 (cont’d.) SPA features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Calidris alpina schinzii Dunlin (ssp. schinzii)

Calidris canutus Knot

Calidris maritima Purple sandpiper

Caprimulgus europaeus Nightjar

Carduelis flavirostris Twite

Catharacta skua Great skua

Cepphus grylle Black guillemot

Charadrius hiaticula Ringed plover

Charadrius morinellus Dotterel

Circus aeruginosus Marsh harrier

Circus cyaneus Hen harrier

Clangula hyemalis Long-tailed duck

Coturnix coturnix Common quail

Crex crex Corn crake

Cygnus columbianus bewickii Bewick's swan

Cygnus cygnus Whooper swan

Cygnus olor Mute swan

Egretta garzetta Little egret

Emberiza schoeniclus Reed bunting

Falco columbarius Merlin

Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon

Falco subbuteo Hobby

Fratercula arctica Puffin

Fulica atra Common coot

Fulmarus glacialis Fulmar

Gallinago gallinago Snipe

Gallinula chloropus Moorhen

Gavia arctica Black-throated diver

Gavia stellata Red-throated diver

Haematopus ostralegus Oystercatcher

Hydrobates pelagicus Storm-petrel

Larus argentatus Herring gull

Larus canus Common gull

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table D1 (cont’d.) SPA features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Larus fuscus Lesser black-backed gull

Larus marinus Great black-backed gull

Larus melanocephalus Mediterranean gull

Larus ridibundus Black-headed gull

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit

Limosa limosa islandica Black-tailed godwit

Locustella luscinioides Savi's warbler

Locustella naevia Grasshopper warbler

Loxia scotica Scottish crossbill

Lullula arborea Wood lark

Melanitta fusca Velvet scoter

Melanitta nigra Common scoter

Mergus merganser Goosander

Mergus serrator Red-breasted merganser

Milvus milvus Red kite

Morus bassanus Gannet

Numenius arquata Curlew

Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel

Oceanodroma leucorhoa Leach’s storm-petrel

Oenanthe oenanthe Wheatear

Pandion haliaetus Osprey

Pernis apivorus Honey buzzard

Phalacrocorax aristotelis Shag

Phalacrocorax carbo Cormorant

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked phalarope

Philomachus pugnax Ruff

Phylloscopus sibilatrix Wood warbler

Pluvialis apricaria Golden plover

Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover

Podiceps auritus Slavonian grebe

Podiceps cristatus Great crested grebe

Porzana porzana Spotted crake

Puffinus puffinus Manx shearwater

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table D1 (cont’d.) SPA features and abbreviations

Feature name Abbreviation

Pyrrhocorax pyrrhocorax Chough

Rallus aquaticus Water rail

Recurvirostra avosetta Avocet

Rissa tridactyla Kittiwake

Saxicola rubetra Whinchat

Seabird assemblage Seabird assemblage

Somateria mollissima Common eider

Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua

Sterna albifrons Little tern

Sterna dougallii Roseate tern

Sterna hirundo Common tern

Sterna paradisaea Arctic tern

Sterna sandvicensis Sandwich tern

Sylvia undata Dartford warbler

Tadorna tadorna Shelduck

Tetrao urogallus Capercaillie

Tringa glareola Wood sandpiper

Tringa nebularia Greenshank

Tringa totanus Redshank

Troglodytes troglodytes fridariensis Fair Isle wren

Turdus torquatus Ring ouzel

Uria aalge Guillemot

Vanellus vanellus Lapwing

Waterfowl assemblage Waterfowl assemblage

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Appendix E Water resource dependent interest features

EA Class Name Abbreviation regime regime Reduced chemistry chemistry Change in Change in or or velocity Entrapment Habitat loss Habitat loss levels or table levels or table Change FW in WR Sensitive? WR Sensitive? salinity regime salinity regime flow to estuary flow to estuary Change flow in Changed water Change water in surface flooding surface flooding dilution capacity

Fens and wet habitats Alkaline fens Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Inland saltmarshes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lowland hay meadows Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Purple moor-grass meadows Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Wet heaths Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Alluvial forests Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Atlantic wet heath Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Coastal Habitats Annual vegetation of drift lines N

Embryonic shifting dunes N

Decalcified fixed dunes with crowberry N

Grey dunes N

Mediterranean saltmarsh scrub N

Inland dunes N

Perennial vegetation of stony banks N

White dunes N

Dunes with creeping willow Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Coastal habitats (sensitive to abstraction) Humid dune slacks Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Coastal lagoons Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mediterranean saltmarsh scrub Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Vegetated sea cliffs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Estuarine & intertidal habitats Atlantic Salt Meadows Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Estuaries Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Large shallow inlets and bays Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mudflats and sandflats Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Reefs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Salicornia and other annuals Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Spartina swards Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Submerged marine habitats Reefs N

Sandbanks N

Sea caves N

Bogs and wet habitats Active raised bogs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Blanket bog Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bog woodland Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Calcareous fens Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Degraded raised bog Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Depressions on peat substrates Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Transition mires and quaking bogs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Riverine habitats & running waters Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Petrifying springs with tufa Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Standing Waters (sensitive to Natural dystrophic lakes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y acidification) Mediterranean temporary ponds Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Nutrient-poor shallow waters Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Natural eutrophic lakes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Turloughs Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dry Woodlands & scrub Beech forests on neutral to rich soils N

Beech forests on acid soils N

Dry oak-dominated woodland N

Western acidic oak woodland N

Natural box scrub N

Oak-hornbeam forests N

Taxus baccata woods N

Tilio-Acerion forests N

Dry grassland Grassland on heavy metal-rich soils N

Calcareous dry grassland and scrub N

Dry heathland habitats Dry coastal heaths N

Dry heaths N

Juniper on heaths and calcareous grasslands N

Upland Alpine and Boreal heaths N

Alpine pioneer formations N

Calcareous rocky slopes N

Siliceous rocky slopes N

Calcareous scree N

Hydrophilous tall herb communities N

Limestone pavements N

Mountain hay meadows N

Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands N

Siliceous scree N

Vascular plants of aquatic habitats Floating water-plantain Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Amphibia Great crested newt Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Coastal plants Shore dock Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Marine mammals Bottlenose dolphin N

Common seal N

Grey seal N

Vascular plants lower plants and Creeping marshwort Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y invertebrates of wet habitats Depressions on peat substrates Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Fen orchid Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Freshwater pearl mussel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Marsh fritillary butterfly Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Narrow-mouthed whorl snail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Round-mouthed whorl snail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Southern Damselfly Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Marsh saxifrage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Vascular plants of grassland Early gentian N

Killarney fern N

Mosses and Liverworts Petalwort Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Slender green feather-moss Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Western rustwort Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Anadromous fish Allis shad Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Atlantic salmon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

River Lamprey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Sea lamprey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Twaite shad Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Non-migratory fish & invertebrates of White-clawed crayfish Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y rivers Brook lamprey Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bullhead Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Freshwater pearl mussel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Spined loach Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Invertebrates of wooded habitats Stag beetle N

Violet click beetle N

Mammals of wooded habitats Barbastelle bat N

Calcareous scree N

Greater horseshoe bat N

Lesser Horseshoe Bat N

Mammals of riverine habitats Otter Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Birds of uplands Curlew Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Golden plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hen harrier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Kittiwake Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lapwing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lesser black-backed gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Manx shearwater Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Merlin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Peregrine falcon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Razorbill Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Red kite Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Short-eared owl Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Snipe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Storm-petrel Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Birds of open sea and offshore rocks Arctic tern N

Common scoter N

Common tern N

Cormorant N

Gannet N

Guillemot N

Herring gull N

Lesser black-backed gull N

Little tern N

Puffin N

Red-throated diver N

Roseate tern N

Sandwich tern N

Scaup N

Seabird assemblage N

Birds of woodland & scrub Honey buzzard N

Nightjar N

Red kite N

Wood lark N

Birds of lowland heaths & brecks Dartford warbler N

Hen harrier N

Honey buzzard N

Nightjar N

Stone-curlew N

E10

Wood lark N

Birds of lowland wet grassland Barnacle goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bar-tailed godwit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bewick's swan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Black-tailed godwit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dark-bellied brent goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Light-bellied brent goose N

Curlew Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dunlin (ssp. schinzii) N

Golden plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Greylag goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Grey plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hen harrier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Knot Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lapwing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Oystercatcher Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pink-footed goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E11

Redshank Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ruff Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Snipe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Teal Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Whooper swan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Birds of lowland dry grassland Stone-curlew N

Birds of lowland freshwaters & their Avocet Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y margins Bewick's swan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bittern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Common tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Cormorant Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Gadwall Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Great crested grebe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Greylag goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hen harrier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lesser black-backed gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little egret Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Marsh harrier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E12

Mediterranean gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pink-footed goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pintail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Red-throated diver Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ringed plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ruff Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Shelduck Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Shoveler Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Snipe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Teal Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Tufted duck Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

White-fronted goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Greenland white-fronted goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Whooper swan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Wigeon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Waterfowl assemblage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Farmland Birds Barnacle goose N

Bar-tailed godwit N

E13

Bewick's swan N

Dark-bellied brent goose N

Light-bellied brent goose N

Curlew N

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) N

Dunlin (ssp. schinzii) N

Golden plover N

Greylag goose N

Grey plover N

Hen harrier N

Knot N

Lapwing N

Marsh harrier N

Oystercatcher N

Pink-footed goose N

Red kite N

Redshank N

Stone-curlew N

E14

White-fronted goose N

Greenland white-fronted goose N

Whooper swan N

Wigeon N

Birds of coastal habitats Arctic tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Avocet Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Barnacle goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bar-tailed godwit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bewick's swan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Black-tailed godwit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dark-bellied brent goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Light-bellied brent goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Chough Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Common scoter Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Common tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Cormorant Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Curlew Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E15

Dunlin (ssp. schinzii) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Gannet Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Golden plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Great crested grebe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Grey plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Guillemot Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hen harrier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Herring gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Knot Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lesser black-backed gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little egret Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Marsh harrier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mediterranean gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Merlin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Oystercatcher Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Peregrine falcon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pink-footed goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E16

Pintail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Puffin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Purple sandpiper Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Redshank Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ringed plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Roseate tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ruff Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Sanderling Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Sandwich tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Scaup Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Shelduck Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Short-eared owl Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Slavonian grebe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Teal Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Turnstone Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

White-fronted goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Greenland white-fronted goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Whooper swan Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E17

Wigeon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Waterfowl assemblage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Seabird assemblage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Birds of estuarine habitats Arctic tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Avocet Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Barnacle goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Bar-tailed godwit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Black-tailed godwit Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dark-bellied brent goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Light-bellied brent goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Common scoter Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Common tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Cormorant Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Curlew Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dunlin (ssp. alpina) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Dunlin (ssp. schinzii) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Golden plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Great crested grebe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E18

Grey plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Hen harrier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Herring gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Knot Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lapwing Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Lesser black-backed gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little egret Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Little tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Mediterranean gull Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Merlin Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Oystercatcher Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Peregrine falcon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pink-footed goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Pintail Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Purple sandpiper Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Redshank Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ringed plover Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Ruff Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

E19

Sanderling Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Sandwich tern Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Scaup Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Shelduck Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Shoveler Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Slavonian grebe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Snipe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Teal Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Turnstone Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

White-fronted goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Greenland white-fronted goose Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Wigeon Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Waterfowl assemblage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Seabird assemblage Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Not classified by EA Submarine structures made by leaking gases N

Coastal dune heathland N

Dunes with sea-buckthorn N

Machair Y

E20

Dunes with juniper thickets N

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Y

Mountain willow scrub N

Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands N

Species-rich Nardus grassland N

Caves not open to the public N

Caledonian forest N

Harbour porpoise N

Green shield-moss Y

Killarney fern Y

Slender naiad Y

Ramshorn snail Y

Appendix F Condition assessments

Table F1 Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Aberbargoed Grasslands Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Unfavourable

Abermenai to Aberffraw Dunes/Y Twyni o Abermenai i Atlantic Salt Meadows Unfavourable Aberffraw Estuaries Not known

Great crested newt Minor feature – not known

Humid dune slacks Unfavourable

Mudflats and sandflats Not known

Natural eutrophic lakes Unfavourable

Petalwort Unfavourable

Spartina swards Minor feature – not known

Transition mires and quaking bogs Minor feature – not known

Vegetated sea cliffs Minor feature – not known

Afon Eden - Cors Goch Trawsfynydd Active raised bogs Unfavourable

Atlantic salmon Unfavourable

Floating Water Plantain Favourable

Freshwater pearl mussel Unfavourable

Otter Unfavourable

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn Atlantic salmon Unfavourable

Floating Water Plantain Favourable

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Unfavourable recovering

Otter Unfavourable

Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation Favourable

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Afon Teifi/River Teifi Atlantic salmon Unfavourable

Brook lamprey Unfavourable

Bullhead Unfavourable

Floating Water Plantain Favourable

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Favourable

Otter Favourable

River Lamprey Unfavourable

Sea lamprey Unfavourable

Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation Favourable

Afon Tywi/River Tywi Allis shad Unfavourable

Brook lamprey Unfavourable

Bullhead Unfavourable

Otter Favourable

River Lamprey Unfavourable

Sea lamprey Unfavourable

Twaite shad Unfavourable

Afonydd Cleddau/Cleddau Rivers Active raised bogs Unfavourable declining

Alluvial forests with alder and ash Unfavourable

Brook lamprey Unfavourable

Bullhead Unfavourable

Otter Favourable

River Lamprey Unfavourable

Sea lamprey Unfavourable

Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation Unfavourable

Alyn Valley Woods/Coedwigoedd Dyffryn Alun Alluvial forests with alder and ash Unfavourable

Berwyn and South Clwyd Mountains/Berwyn a Mynyddoedd Blanket bog Not known De Clwyd Transition mires and quaking bogs Not known

Blaen Cynon Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Cadair Idris Alkaline Fen Favourable

Blanket bog Unfavourable declining

Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable declining

Molinia meadows Unfavourable declining

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable declining

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Favourable

Slender Green Feather Moss Favourable

Caeau Mynydd Mawr Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Not known

Cardigan Bay/Bae Ceredigion Reefs Favourable

River Lamprey Favourable

Sea lamprey Favourable

Carmarthen Bay and Estuaries/Bae Caerfyrddin ac Aberoedd Allis shad Not stated

Atlantic Salt Meadows Not stated

Estuaries Not stated

Mudflats and sandflats Not stated

Otter Not stated

River Lamprey Not stated

Sea lamprey Not stated

Twaite shad Not stated

Carmarthen Bay Dunes/Twyni Bae Caerfyrddin Fen orchid Unfavourable declining

Humid dune slacks Unfavourable declining

Narrow-mouthed whorl snail Unfavourable declining

Petalwort Unfavourable declining

Cemlyn Bay/Bae Cemlyn Coastal lagoons Favourable

Cernydd Carmel Active raised bogs Unfavourable declining

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable

Turloughs Unfavourable

Clogwyni Pen Llyn/Seacliffs of Lleyn Vegetated sea cliffs Unfavourable recovering

Coed y Cerrig Alluvial forests with alder and ash Favourable

Coedydd Aber Alluvial forests with alder and ash Unfavourable

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Cors Caron Active raised bogs Unfavourable recovering

Bog woodland Unfavourable recovering

Degraded raised bog Unfavourable recovering

Depressions on peat substrates Unfavourable recovering

Otter Not known

Transition mires and quaking bogs Unfavourable recovering

Cors Fochno Active raised bogs Unfavourable

Degraded raised bog Unfavourable

Depressions on peat substrates Unfavourable

Corsydd Eifionydd/Eifionydd Fens Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable declining

Slender Green Feather Moss Unfavourable declining

Transition mires and quaking bogs Unfavourable declining

Corsydd Llyn/Lleyn Fens Alkaline Fen Unfavourable

Calcareous fens Unfavourable

Desmoulin’s whorl snail Unfavourable

Geyer`s whorl snail Unfavourable

Corsydd Mon/Anglesey Fens Alkaline Fen Unfavourable declining

Calcareous fens Unfavourable declining

Geyer`s whorl snail Unfavourable declining

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters Unfavourable declining

Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable declining

Molinia meadows Unfavourable declining

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable

Southern Damselfly Unfavourable declining

Crymlyn Bog/Cors Crymlyn Alluvial forests with alder and ash Unfavourable

Calcareous fens Unfavourable declining

Transition mires and quaking bogs Unfavourable

Cwm Cadlan Alkaline Fen Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Unfavourable

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Dee Estuary (cSAC) Annual vegetation of drift lines TBC

Estuaries TBC

Grey dunes TBC

Petalwort TBC

River Lamprey TBC

Salicornia and other annuals TBC

White dunes TBC

Vegetated sea cliffs TBC

Deeside and Buckley Newt sites Great crested newt Unfavourable declining

Drostre Bank Alluvial forests with alder and ash Favourable

Molinia meadows Favourable

Elenydd Blanket bog Unfavourable

Floating Water Plantain Unfavourable

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Unfavourable

Eryri / Snowdonia Alkaline Fen Favourable

Blanket bog Unfavourable

Depressions on peat substrates Favourable

Floating Water Plantain Not known

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Unfavourable recovering

Petrifying springs with tufa formation Unfavourable declining

Slender Green Feather Moss Favourable

Fenn's, Whixall, Bettisfield, Wem and Cadney Mosses Active raised bogs Unfavourable recovering (Wales) Degraded raised bog Unfavourable recovering

Glannau Mon: Cors heli / Anglesey Coast: Saltmarsh Atlantic Salt Meadows Unfavourable

Estuaries Not known

Mudflats and sandflats Not known

Glannau Ynys Gybi / Holy Island Coast Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable declining

Vegetated sea cliffs Unfavourable

Glan-traeth Great crested newt Unfavourable declining

Glaswelltiroedd Cefn Cribwr / Cefn Cribwr Grasslands Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Unfavourable

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Gower Ash Woods / Coedydd Ynn Gwyr Alluvial forests with alder and ash Unfavourable

Gower Commons / Tiroedd Comin Gwyr Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Unfavourable

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable declining

Southern Damselfly Unfavourable

Great Orme's Head / Pen y Gogarth Vegetated sea cliffs Not known

Gweunydd Blaencleddau Alkaline Fen Favourable

Blanket bog Unfavourable recovering

Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Unfavourable declining

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable declining

Southern Damselfly Favourable

Transition mires and quaking bogs Favourable

Halkyn Mountain/Mynydd Helygain Great crested newt Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Unfavourable

Johnstown Newt Sites Great crested newt Unfavourable declining

Kenfig/Cynffig Atlantic Salt Meadows Favourable

Fen orchid Unfavourable declining

Hard oligo Unfavourable recovering

Humid dune slacks Unfavourable declining

Petalwort Unfavourable declining

Limestone Coast of South West Wales/Arfordir Calchfaen De Petalwort Favourable Orllewin Cymru Vegetated sea cliffs Unfavourable declining

Llangorse Lake/Llyn Syfaddan Natural eutrophic lakes Unfavourable

Llwyn Alluvial forests with alder and ash Favourable

Llyn Dinam Natural eutrophic lakes Not known

Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat Sites/Coedydd Derw a Alluvial forests with alder and ash Unfavourable Safleoedd Ystlumod Meirion Bog woodland Unfavourable

Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation Not known

Migneint-Arenig-Dduallt Blanket bog Unfavourable

Natural dystrophic lakes and ponds Unfavourable

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Unfavourable recovering

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Morfa Harlech a Morfa Dyffryn Humid dune slacks Unfavourable declining

Petalwort Favourable

Mynydd Epynt Slender Green Feather Moss Unfavourable

N Pembrokeshire Woodlands/Coedydd Gogledd Sir Benfro Alluvial forests with alder and ash Favourable

North West Pembrokeshire Commons/Comin Gogledd Floating Water Plantain Unfavourable Orllewin Sir Benfro Molinia meadows Unfavourable recovering

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable recovering

Transition mires and quaking bogs Unfavourable recovering

Pembrokeshire Bat Sites and Bosherton Lakes/Safleoedd Hard oligo Unfavourable declining Ystlum Sir Benfro a Llynnoedd Bosherton Otter Unfavourable declining

Pembrokeshire Marine/Sir Benfro Forol Allis shad Not stated

Atlantic Salt Meadows Not stated

Coastal lagoons Not stated

Estuaries Not stated

Mudflats and sandflats Not stated

Otter Not stated

River Lamprey Not stated

Sea lamprey Not stated

Twaite shad Not stated

Pen Llyn a'r Sarnau/Lleyn Peninsula and the Sarnau Atlantic Salt Meadows Not stated

Coastal lagoons Not stated

Estuaries Not stated

Mudflats and sandflats Not stated

Otter Not stated

Preseli Alkaline Fen Favourable

Depressions on peat substrates Favourable

Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Unfavourable

Slender Green Feather Moss Favourable

Southern Damselfly Favourable

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

Rhinog Blanket bog Favourable

Depressions on peat substrates Favourable

Floating Water Plantain Favourable

Northern Atlantic wet heaths Favourable

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters Unfavourable recovering

Rhos Goch Active raised bogs Favourable

Alluvial forests with alder and ash Favourable

Bog woodland Favourable

Molinia meadows Favourable

Transition mires and quaking bogs Favourable

Rhos Llawr-cwrt Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Slender Green Feather Moss Unfavourable

Rhos Talglas Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable declining

Molinia meadows Unfavourable recovering

River Dee and Bala Lake/Afon Dyfrdwy a Llyn Tegid (England Atlantic salmon Unfavourable & Wales) Brook lamprey Unfavourable

Bullhead Unfavourable

Floating Water Plantain Favourable

Otter Favourable

River Lamprey Unfavourable

Sea lamprey Unfavourable

Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation Unfavourable

River Usk/Afon Wysg Allis shad Unfavourable

Atlantic salmon Unfavourable

Brook lamprey Favourable

Bullhead Unfavourable

Otter Favourable

River Lamprey Favourable

Sea lamprey Unfavourable

Twaite shad Unfavourable

Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation Unfavourable

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Table F1 (continued) Summary of Condition Assessment for Water Resource Sensitive SACs and Interest Features

SAC Water Resource Sensitive Features* Condition

River Wye/Afon Gwy (England & Wales) Allis shad Unfavourable

Atlantic salmon Unfavourable

Brook lamprey Unfavourable

Bullhead Unfavourable

Otter Unfavourable

River Lamprey Unfavourable

Sea lamprey Favourable

Transition mires and quaking bogs Unfavourable

Twaite shad Unfavourable

Water courses with the Ranunculus vegetation Unfavourable

White-clawed crayfish Unfavourable declining

Severn Estuary Atlantic Salt Meadows TBC

Estuaries TBC

Mudflats and sandflats TBC

River Lamprey TBC

Sea lamprey TBC

Twaite shad TBC

St David's/Ty Ddewi Floating Water Plantain Favourable

Vegetated sea cliffs Favourable

Usk Bat Sites/Safleodd Ystlumod Wysg Blanket bog Unfavourable

Degraded raised bog Unfavourable

Y Fenai a Bae Conwy/Menai Strait and Conwy Bay Mudflats and sandflats Not stated

Yerbeston Tops Marsh fritillary butterfly Unfavourable

Molinia meadows Unfavourable recovering

* Note that some sites may have other features.

March 2013 Doc Reg No. 32493RR046i3

Appendix G Feasible options assessment summary

Table F.1 Abbreviations Used in Feasible Option Screening Tables

Abbreviation Definition

SAC Special Area of Conservation (see also Section 1.2 and Appendix B)

SPA Special Protection Area (see also Section 1.2 and Appendix B)

Ramsar Not an abbreviation; a ‘wetland of international importance’ (see also Section 1.2 and Appendix B)

Dist. Approximate distance to nearest point of the European site (note this is not necessarily the distance to the features)

LSE ‘Likely significant effects’ (see also Section 3.3.2 and Table 3.1)

Cons. Construction; assessment of likely effects as a result of construction activities (see also Section 3.3.2)

Oper. Operation; assessment of likely effects as a result of operation activities (see also Section 3.3.2)

N No (i.e. no ‘likely significant effects’; see Table 3.1)

U Uncertain (i.e. effects uncertain; see Table 3.1)

Y Yes (i.e. significant effects likely; see Table 3.1)

Option 8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

Summary description of scheme General assessment and recommendations

Afon Rhythallt drains the Padarn and Peris lakes at Llanberis. An existing intake at Crawia weir near This proposal would be an inter-basin transfer of untreated water, although there will be no storage or Llanrug previously abstracted water to Crug WTW, near Caernarfon. Crug WTW is now abandoned. discharge of the raw water (therefore no risk of transfer of species etc.). This option would require The abstraction from Llyn Cwellyn is constrained by the abstraction licence, resulting in a potential construction works near this the Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC, but there would be no direct impact shortfall of supplies at Cwellyn WTW. This option would abstract water from the Afon Rhythallt and either through construction (no new intakes / outfalls etc) or operation (water from the Afon Rhythallt transfer the water to Cwellyn WTW, which has been upgraded as part of Welsh Water’s AMP 5 Quality would be pumped to Cwellyn WTW for treatment). All potential construction impacts could be managed Programme and would enable the increased flows to be managed. This option is a network solution: it through normal construction best practice, although construction may need to be timed to minimise would not require any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from the Afon Rhythallt potential impacts on migratory fish (salmon). The Y Fenai a Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay and would operate within the existing licence parameters. SAC is downstream of the proposed abstraction, although operational effects are not anticipated as the option would not require any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from the Afon Rhythallt and would operate within the existing licence parameters. No other sites are likely to be impacted by the scheme.

Site and interest features Dist. LSE? Rationale

Cons. Oper.

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC <1 U N

Floating water-plantain N N Feature present in lake and not exposed to likely effects of scheme

Atlantic salmon U N Possibility of construction effects due to proximity of pipeline to SAC, but avoidable with appropriate mitigation

Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation U N Possibility of construction effects due to proximity of pipeline to SAC, but avoidable with appropriate mitigation

Otter U N Possibility of construction effects due to proximity of pipeline to SAC, but avoidable with appropriate mitigation

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters N N Feature present in lake and not exposed to likely effects of scheme

Coedydd Aber SAC 13 N N

Alluvial forests N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Western acidic oak woodland N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Coedydd Derw a Safleoedd Ystlumod Meirion/ 11 N N Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat Sites SAC

Option 8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

Dry heaths N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Western acidic oak woodland N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Tilio-Acerion forests N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Bog woodland N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Alluvial forests N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Lesser Horseshoe Bat N N Possibility of weak effects depending on pipeline route and impact on hedges etc but unlikely to be significant.

Wet heaths N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Corsydd Eifionydd SAC 12 N N

Slender green feather-moss N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Marsh fritillary butterfly N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Transition mires and quaking bogs N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Corsydd Môn/ Anglesey Fens SAC 14 N N

Wet heaths N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Marsh fritillary butterfly N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Geyer`s whorl snail N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Calcareous fens N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Alkaline fens N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Southern Damselfly N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Option 8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

Purple moor-grass meadows N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Eryri/ Snowdonia SAC 3 N N

Siliceous scree N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Calcareous rocky slopes N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Siliceous alpine and boreal grasslands N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Hydrophilous tall herb communities N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Slender green feather-moss N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Siliceous rocky slopes N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Floating water-plantain N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Species-rich Nardus grassland N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Depressions on peat substrates N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Petrifying springs with tufa N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Alkaline fens N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Alpine pioneer formations N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Western acidic oak woodland N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Blanket bog N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Alpine and Boreal heaths N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Wet heaths N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Alpine and subalpine calcareous grasslands N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Option 8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

Dry heaths N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway ('upstream')

Glannau Môn: Cors heli / Anglesey Coast: Saltmarsh 7 N N SAC

Salicornia and other annuals N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Atlantic Salt Meadows N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Mudflats and sandflats N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Estuaries N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Glan-traeth SAC 11 N N

Great crested newt N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Glynllifon SAC 6 N N

Lesser Horseshoe Bat N N Possibility of weak effects depending on pipeline route and impact on hedges etc but unlikely to be significant.

Y Fenai a Bae Conwy/ Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC 4 / N N 8DS

Mudflats and sandflats N N Possibility of indirect construction effects, but can be avoided with best practice

Large shallow inlets and bays N N Feature not sensitive to likely effects of scheme

Reefs N N Possibility of indirect construction effects, but can be avoided with best practice

Sandbanks N N Feature not sensitive to likely effects of scheme

Sea caves N N Feature not sensitive to likely effects of scheme

Y Twyni o Abermenai i Aberffraw/ Abermenai to 6 N N Aberffraw Dunes SAC

Natural eutrophic lakes N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Option 8001.3 Connect Afon Rhythallt to Cwellyn WTW

Humid dune slacks N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

White dunes N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Petalwort N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Dunes with creeping willow N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Grey dunes N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Shore dock N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Embryonic shifting dunes N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Traeth Lafan / Lavan Sands, Conway Bay SPA 10 N N

Curlew N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Great crested grebe N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Oystercatcher N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Corsydd Môn a Llyn/ Anglesey and Llyn Fens Ramsar 14 N N

0 N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Llyn Idwal Ramsar 11 N N

0 N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Option 8001.4 New Crug WTW and utilisation of existing Afon Rhythallt source

Summary description of scheme General assessment and recommendations

Crug WTW is currently mothballed. Water used to be abstracted from the Afon Rhythallt at Crawia The scheme would require construction works within 900m of the Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC (but weir, near Llanrug, before being treated at Crug WTW to supply industry near Caernarfon. The option over 2km via the nearest tributary). No significant construction effects would be anticipated assuming would utilise the original abstraction point on the Afon Rhythallt. A new WTW, at the existing WTW normal measures. The Y Fenai a Bae Conwy / Menai Strait and Conwy Bay SAC is downstream of the site, would be required. The treated water would serve the Caernarfon distribution zone. This option is proposed abstraction, although operational effects are not anticipated as the option would not require a network solution: it would not require any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from any increase in the currently licensed abstraction volumes from the Afon Rhythallt and would operate the Afon Rhythallt and would operate within the existing licence parameters. within the existing licence parameters. No other sites are likely to be impacted by the scheme.

Site and interest features Dist. LSE? Rationale

Cons Oper

Afon Gwyrfai a Llyn Cwellyn SAC 1 N N

Floating water-plantain N N Feature present in lake and not exposed to likely effects of scheme

Atlantic salmon N N Possibility of construction effects due to proximity of pipeline to SAC, but avoidable with best practice

Water courses with Ranunculus-type vegetation N N Possibility of construction effects due to proximity of pipeline to SAC, but avoidable with best practice

Otter N N Possibility of construction effects due to proximity of pipeline to SAC, but avoidable with best practice

Oligotrophic to mesotrophic standing waters N N Feature present in lake and not exposed to likely effects of scheme

Coedydd Aber SAC 13 N N

Alluvial forests N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Western acidic oak woodland N N Site / interest features not linked by reasonable impact pathway

Coedydd Derw a Safleoedd Ystlumod Meirion/ 10 N N Meirionnydd Oakwoods and Bat Sites SAC